L00193905R 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/caseofcaptwmbroaOOyork 


THE  CASE 

OF 

V  \  i  < 

CAPT.  WM.  BROADER  YORK, 

COMMANDER  OF  THE 

BRITISH  BARQUE  ALDEBARAN 

OF  LIVERPOOL, 


CONTAINING 

/ 

THE  PROCEEDINGS  IfAD  BEFORE  HIS  HONOR  GEO.  W.  LEWIS,  RECORDER  OF  MUNICIPALITY 
NO.  3,  OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  ORLEANS,  ON  AN  AFFIDAVIT  MADE  BY 

RICHARD  HARRISON  CHILTON, 


CHARGING  CAPTAIN  YORK  WITH  AN  ATTEMPT  TO  COMMIT  A  BREACH  OT  THE  PEACE. 

/ 

AND,  ALSO, 

THE  TRIAL  OF  THE  RULE 

GRANTED  BY  IIIS  HONOR  THEODORE  H.  M’CALEB,  JUDGE  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT 
COURT,  FOR  THE  DISTRICT  OF  LOUISIANA,  ON  THE  FILING  OF  THE  PETITION 
OF  RICHARD  HARRTSON  CHILTON,  PRAYING  FOR  A  LIBEL  TO  SEIZE 
THE  SAID  BARdUE,  IN  ORDER  TO  DISPOSSESS 
CAPTAIN  YORK  OF  HIS  COMMAND. 


WITH  AN  APPENDIX. 


BY  AN  OBSERVER. 


NEW  ORLEANS: 

Printed  for  the  Compiler,  and  Published  at  the  Office  of  the  “Jeffersonian  Republican/' 
under  the  St.  Charles  Hotel.  For  sale  and  to  he  had  at  that  Office,  and  also 
at  D.  Morgan’s  Literary  Depot,  Exchange  Place. 

PRICE  ONE  DOLLAR 


1845 


THE  FLOWERS  COLLECTION 


PREFACE. 


To  THE  CoMMANERS  OF  VESSELS,  BOTH  BRITISH  AND  AMERICAN,  AND 
the  Mercantile  tublic  generally. 

The  compiler  of  this  pamphlet  having  been  urged  by  numerous  indi¬ 
viduals,  whose  interests  and  liberty  are  so  deeply  connected  with  the  late 
investigation  of  the  conduct  of  Capt.  York,  before  the  Recorder  of  the 
Third  Municipality  of  this  city,  to  collate  the  proceedings  and  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  case,  now  presents  to  those  who  desire  light  or  informa¬ 
tion  upon  this  matter,  a  plain  statement  of  the  facts  connected  with  it,  as 
they  have  come  to  his  knowledge. 

The  compiler  has  endeavored  to  do  no  one  any  injury  by  either  garb¬ 
ling  statements  made,  or  distorting  such  parts  as  might  give  him  more  li¬ 
cense  than  he  will  avail  himself  of,  in  giving  a  ludicrous  coloring  in 
portraying  some  of  the  characters  who  bear  conspicuous  parts  in  this  af¬ 
fair.  Such  is  not  his  object;  those  who  have  made  themselves  obnoxious 
to  ridicule,  are  welcome  to  such  laurels,' — all  that  he  desires  to  do  is,  to 
speak  of  all  as  he  has  found  them,  “nothing  extenuate,  nor  aught  set  down 
in  malice.” 

The  story  speaks  for  itself — a  young  man  (R.  H.  Chilton,)  connected 
with  reputed,  wealthy  and  honorable  merchants  in  England,  who  are  en¬ 
gaged  largely  in  the  carrying  trade  between  the  Southern  ports  of  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  states  that  his  father,  although  his  name 
is  not  on  the  register  of  the  barque  Aldebaran,  is  the  commercial  partner 
of  the  owner  of  that  vessel,  and  in  consequence  of  such  connection  he  (R. 
H.  C.)  presumes  upon  the  rights  of  the  owners  and  claims  to  be  the  agent 
for  the  owner  of  this  particular  vessel,  without  producing  the  shadow  of 
authority  for  such  assumption.  A  difficulty  arises  between  the  comman¬ 
der  (York)  and  his  mate,  (Scott) — forthwith  Mr.  Chilton  interposes  to  dis¬ 
place  the  former  and  elevate  the  latter  to  command;  in  all  which  the  British 
Consul  co-operates. 

In  presenting  this  compilation,  detailing  the  circumstances  of  this  case, 
recourse  has  necessarily  been  had  to  the  Records  of  the  Courts,  the  news¬ 
paper  press,  and  other  valuable  sources.  No  literary  fame  is  sought  after 
or  needed:  the  testimony,  on  a  calm  perusal,  must  convince  all  that  there 
must  he  some  hidden  motive  for  changing  the  supervision  of  the  business 
of  the  vessel  from  the  ship-master,  to  whom  it  had  been  delegated 
by  the  owner,  to  the  merchant. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Capt.  York  was  honorably  acquitted  by  the  Re¬ 
corder — that  there  were  no  grounds  whatever  for  the  fears  of  Chilton,  but 


4 


on  the  contrary,  the  pacific  character  of  Capt.  York  was  clearly  estab¬ 
lished;  if  fault  he  had  committed,  it  consisted  in  too  mild  a  submission, 
in  the  first  place,  to  the  wrongs  done  him  in  asking  him  to  yield  that  au¬ 
thority  which  the  laws  of  nations,  as  well  as  the  owner,  gave  him,  by  al¬ 
lowing  another  person  to  come  on  board  his  vessel  and  attempt  to  as- 
-  sume  that  command  of  which  it  was  pretended  he  had  been  deprived.  No 
power  was  competent  to  this,  unless  it  might  be  that  so'me  most  extraordi¬ 
nary  conduct  or  gross  violation  of  law  on  his  part  had  been  committed, 
(but  of  this  no  proof  was  even  offered,  much  less  shown,  at  any  stage  of 
the  proceedings  in  the  different  investigations  to  prove  any  such  allega¬ 
tion,)  until  he  had  delivered  his  vessel  up  at  the  place,  and  to  those  where, 
and  from  whom  he  had  received  and  was  to  deliver  her. 

The  manner  in  which  this  unfortunate  commander  has  been  used,  par¬ 
takes  more  of  the  character  of  persecution  than  of  justice,  as  will  be  seen 
by  the  many  means  resorted  to  to  harrass  and  vex  him  by  the  most  annoy¬ 
ing  suits,  and  the  repeated  attempts  of  Chilton,  after  he  had  gone  as  far 
as  it  is  presumed  he  deemed  it  prudent  to  go,  in  withdrawing  his  suit  for 
the  possession  of  the  Captain’s  own  chronometer,  and  for  libel  in  the  U. 
S.  District  Court,  and  winding  up  the  climax  by  illegally  and  unlawfully 
carrying  off  the  barque  Aldebaran — this  done,  too,  under  the  cover  of 
night,  and  in  presence  of  the  British  Consul,  with  other  aiders  and 
abettors. 

The  attention  of  the  reader  is  particularly  called  to  the  proceedings  in 
the  U.  S.  District  Court,  and  to  the  law  quoted  in  the  appendix,  from 
which  the  Consul  pretended  his  authority  was  derived  to  defend  him  in  the 
course  which  he  thought  proper  to  pursue  in  the  first  place,  by  issuing  his 
order  to  supercede  Capt.  York  as  commander. 

The  suit  brought  before  his  honor,  Judge  Jackson,  Associate  Judge  of 
the  City  Court,  by  Richard  H.  Chilton,  for  the  possession  of  the  chro- 
nometor — the  private  property  of  Capt.  York — came  up  for  trial;  but  it  is 
believed  the  evident  injustice  of  this  proceeding  induced  the  plaintiff  to 
withdraw  the  suit,  on  payment  of  costs,  without  further  proceedings.  It  is 
deemed  unnecessary  to  notice  this  act  further. 

Should  the  compiler  have  succeeded  in  calling  proper  attention  to  the 
relative  rights  of  so  large  a  portion  of  worthy  men,  who  visit  the  ports  of 
the  United  States  from  Great  Britain,  in  reference  to  their  duty  to,  and  the 
British  Consul’s  proper  authority  towards  them, — thereby  creating  a  bet¬ 
ter  understanding  of  the  position  each  occupies,  and  thus  prevent  the  fre¬ 
quent  collisions  with  British  Masters  and  their  Consuls,  not  only  in  New 
Orleans,  but  also  in  other  cities;  also,  to  curb  the  exercise  of  powers  not 
delegated,  or  those  acts  which  appear  unnecessarily  harsh  or  tyrannical, — 
then  he  will  have  accomplished  all  he  desires. 

Very  Respectfully, 

AN  OBSERVER. 


New  Orleans,  May,  1845. 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE  RECORDER’S  COURT  — MUNICIPALITY  NO,  3. 

IN  THE  CASE  OE 

THE  STATE  OF  LOUISIANA, 

vs. 

WILLIAM  BROADER  YORK. 


A  true  copy  from  the  Records  of  said  Court. 


STATE  OF  LOUISIANA, 

Municipality  No.  3  —  Parish  and  city  of  New  Orleans. 

STATE  VS.  W.  B.  YORK,  —  INTENDED  BREACH  OF  THE  PEACE. 

Affidavit  of  Richard  Harrison  Chilton. Personally  appeared  before  me,  G.  W. 
Lewis,  Recorder  of  Municipality  No.  3,  of  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  acting  as  justice 
of  the  peace,  duly  commissioned  and  sworn,  R.  H.  Chilton,  who  being  sworn,  does 
depose  and  say,  that  he  is  apprehensive,  and  has  strong  reasons  to  believe  and  fear  that 
W.  B.  York  is  about  to  commit  a  breach  of  the  peace,  by  intruding  himself,  and  inter¬ 
fering  with  the  command  of  the  British  ship  “  Aldebaran,”  of  which  the  deponent  is 
the  agent  in  this  city.  Deponent  has  cause  to  apprehend  that  said  York  will  create  a 
disturbance  on  board  of  said  vessel,  unless  he  be  arrested  and  bound  to  keep  the  peace; 
wherefore,  he  prays  that  said  York  be  arrested  and  dealt  with  according  to  law. 

(Signed,)  R.  H.  CHILTON. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  in  New  Orleans,  this  15th  day  of  April,  1845. 

(Signed,)  G.  W.  LEWIS, 

.  Recorder  of  Municipality  No.  3. 


WARRANT. 

STATE  OF  LOUISIANA. 

Recorder's  Office,  Municipality  No.  3  —  Parish  and  city  of  New  Orleans, 

To  Captain  E.  Mazerat,  or  any  of  the  men  of  the  police  of  New  Orleans,  greeting  : 
Whereas,  complaint  has  been  made  on  the  oath  of  Richard  Harrison  Chilton, 
before  me,  G.  W.  Lewis,  Recorder  of  the  third  Municipality  of  the  city  aforesaid,  that 
ho  is  apprehensive,  and  has  strong  reasons  to  believe  anil  fear  that  W.  B.  York  is  about 
to  commit  a  broach  of  the  peace,  by  intruding  himself,  and  interfering  with  the  com- 


6 


raand  of  the  British  ship  “  Aldebaran,”  of  which  he  is  tho  agent  for  this  city,  and  that 
lie  has  cause  to  apprehend  that  said  York  will  create  a  disturbance  on  board  of  said 
vessel. 

You  are  hereby  commanded  to  take  the  body  of  the  said  W.  B.  York,  and  bring  him 
with  this  warrant  before  me,  to  answer  to  lire  complaint;  and  should  he  not  be  found  or 
seen  within  three  days  from  the  date  hereof,  you  will  not  fail  to  return  immediately  this 
warrant,  with  what  you  have  done  endorsed  thereon. 

New  Orleans,  April  15th,  1845. 

(Signed,)  G.  W.  LEWIS, 

Recorder  of  Municipality  No.  3,  of  the  city  of  New  Orleans. 


Officers'  return  to  the  foregoing. 

Received  1 5th  April,  1845;  executed  on  the  same  day  at  61  o'clock,  P.  M.,  by  arrest¬ 
ing  W.  B.  York.  Returned  same  day. 

(Signed.)  JOSEPH  HERNANDEZ. 

V.  HERNANDEZ. 


BOND  OF  APPEARANCE. 

State  of  Louisiana,  1  W.  B.  York,  as  principal,  acknowledges  to  owe  the  State  of 
City  of  New  Orleans,  I  Louisiana, [five  hundred  dollars,  and  Thomas  Hill,  a  free-holder 
Municipality  No.  3.  (of  the  city,  as  surety,  acknowledge  to  owe,  each  of  them,  to 
L.  S.  J  the  State,  five  hundred  dollars  of  their  several  estates,  real  and 

personal,  to  be  levied  to  the  use  of  said  State  upon  this  condition:  that  if  the  said  W.  B. 
York  shall  be  and  appear  before  the  Recorders’  Court  of  Municipality  No.  3,  of  the  city 
of  New  Orleans,  to  be  held  in  the  said  city  on  the  16th  of  April,  1845;  or  if  the  said 
court  should  not  be  held  on  the  day  last  aforesaid,  then,  on  the  first  day  afterwards,  the 
said  court  shall  be  held,  then  and  there  aforesaid,  to  answer  to  the  complaint  brought 
against  him  for  an  intended  breach  of  the  peace,  and  not  depart  thence  without  leave  of 
said  court,  and  shall  keep  the  peace  in  the  mean  time ;  then  this  recognizance  shall  be 
void,  otherwise  to  remain  in  full  force  and  virtue. 

Taken  and  acknowledged  at  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  the  15th  day  of  April,  1845. 

(Signed,)  G.  W.  LEWIS, 

(Signed,)  W.  B.  YORK,  Recorder  of  Municipality  No.  3. 

THOMAS  HILL. 


RECORDER’S  COURT— MUNICIPALITY  NO.  3. 

STATE  VS.  W.  B.  YORK. - INTENDED  BREACH  OF  THE  PEACE. 

(first  DAY.) 

Wednesday ,  April  1 6th,  1845. 

This  cause  came  on  this  day,  for  trial,  R.  H.  Chilton  appearing  for  the 
State,  and  Jacob  Barker  for  the  accused.  The  accused’s  answer  being 
read  and  filed,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Chilton,  the  cause  was  continued  fo  to¬ 
morrow,  at  12  o’clock,  M. 


7 


ANSWER. 

RECORDERS’  COURT,  — THIRD  MUNICIPALITY. 

State,  )  The  defendant  appears,  and  for  answer,  denies  that  R.  If.  Chilton  is 

vs.  [  the  agent  of  the  ship  “Aldebaran,”  and  calls  on  him  to  establish  that 

W.  B.  York.  )  allegation. 

This  defendant  insists  that  he  had  not  any  intention  of  committing  a  breach  of  tho 
peace  ;  and  requires  that  proof  of  such  an  intention  be  adduced. 

Thedefendant  insists  that  he  is  the  lawful  agent  of  the  owner  of  the  said  vessel ;  that 
he  is  the  commander  of  the  said  vessel,  and  as  such  commander,  it  :s  his  intention  to  super¬ 
intend  the  business  of  the  ship;  and  to  use  all  lawful  means  in  his  power  to  command 
obedience. 

The  defendant  charges  the  said  R.  H.  Chilton  with  unlawful  and  unauthorized  inter¬ 
ference  with  the  discipline  of  said  ship;  with  exciting  rebellion  and  disobedience  among 
the  crew,  in  refusing  to  obey  the  orders  of  this  defendant,  as  master  of  the  said  vessel, 
and  thereby  endangering  the  peace  of  the  city.  He,  therefore  prays  to  be  dismissed 
with  costs  and  damages- 

(Signed,,)  JACOB  BARKER, 

Counsel  for  the  defendant. 


RECORDER’S  COURT— MUNICIPALITY  NO.  3. 

(second  day.) 

Thursday ,  April  11th,  1845. 

State,  )  This  cause  came  on  this  day  for  trial ;  John  Winthrop 

vs.  >  appearing  for  the  State,  and  Jacob  Barker  and  Zephyrin 

W.  B.  York,  y  Latour  for  the  accused,  when,  after  hearing  testimony,  the 
cause  was  continued  to  to-morrow,  at  12  o’clock,  M.,  at.  the  instance  of 
Mr.  Winthrop,  for  his  client,  Mr.  Chilton,  to  produce  his  authority.  Tho 
Court  having  ruled  that  it  seemed  to  him  proper  it  should  be  produced, 
inasmuch  as  the  propriety  of  the  Captain’s  conduct  might  depend  upon  the 
authority  to  remove  him. 


TESTIMONY  TAKEN  IN  OPEN  COURT,  APRIL  17TH,  1845. 

Cross-Examination  by  3Ir.  Barker. 

R.  H.  Chilton  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says  :  that  Thomas 
Hunter  Holderness,  of  Liverpool,  is  the  owner  of  the  ship  Aldebaran,  on 
the  register;  he  has  general  and  particular  letters  of  instructions  from  Mr. 
T.  H.  Holderness,  concerning  his  vessels  and  captains ;  the  name  of  the 
Aldebaran  will  appear  in  some  form  or  other  in  said  letters,  but  he  is 
attending  as  agent  lor  some  twenty  vessels  for  the  same  owners,  and 
cannot  particularly  state  what  reference  is  made  to  the  Aldebaran.  Ac- 


8 


knowledges  his  signature  and  hand  writing  to  three  communications, 
addressed  by  him  to  Captain  York,  and  marked  No,  1. 

Examination  in  chief  by  Mr.  Winlhrop.  ' 

Captain  York  called  upon  witness  the  first  day  he  arrived — conversed 
and  treated  with  him  as  the  agent  of  the  owners.  Had  a  general  con¬ 
versation  with  him  as  to  how  his  ship  was ;  did  not  refer  him  to  any 
person  for  freight  or  cargo,  the  ship  being  a  chartered  vessel.  The  Cap¬ 
tain  did  not  question  his  authority  as  the  agent,  until  after  this  occurrence 
took  place.  His  father  is  a  partner  of  Mr.  Holderness  ;  is  concerned 
with  him  in  the  ownership  of  vessels;  cannot  swear  that  his  father  is  part 
owner  of  this  vessel.  Is  agent  for  his  father,  in  relation  to  all  ships  that 
come  from  that  concern;  has  been  particularly  requested  to  attend  to  these 
vessels  and  captains,  and  has  come  out  here  for  that  purpose. 

Question  by  Mr.  Winlhrop.— What  first  induced  you  to  apply  to  the 
British  Consul,  in  relation  to  this  matter  ? 

Answer.' — I  did  not  first  apply  to  the  Consul,  but  the  Consul  applied  to 
me  for  an  interview. 

Cross-Examined  by  Mr.  Barker. 

Mr.  Holderness,  who  is  the  owner  on  the  register  of  the  ship  Aldebaran, 
is  the  partner  of  his  father.  The  Holderness  of  Holderness  &  Chilton,  of 
Kingston  upon  Hull,  is  not  the  owner  of  the  Aldebaran.  The  ship  is  a 
chartered  vessel  to  the  “  Hull  Flax  and  Cotton  Mill  Company;”  has  a 
letter  from  the  owner  informing  him  that,  that  company  has  chartered  the 
Aldebaran;  the  letter  now  produced  marked  A  are  the  sailing  instructions 
of  the  Aldebaran;  the  signature  is  in  the  hand  writing  of  T.  Holderness, 
of  Kingston  upon  Hull;  the  signature  to  the  document  marked  B  is  that 
of  T.  Holderness,  of  Kingston  upon  Hull ;  the  signature  to  the  same 
document  is  that  of  Captain  York. 

Question  by  Mr.  Barker. — Are  Holderness  &  Chilton  the  accredited 
agents  of  the  owners  of  the  Aldebaran,  in  relation  to  the  business  of  that 
vessel,  when  at  Hull  ? 

Answer. — The  two  houses,  together  with  myself  and  my  brother,  are 
so  mixed  up  in  business,  that  I  do  not  know  exactly  how  to  answer  the 
question;  as  far  as  I  know,  Holderness  &  Chilton  of  Hull,  have  exactly 
the  same  authority  I  have. 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 

I  gave  the  Captain  advice  in  regard  to  tradesmen,  stevedores,  &c.,  as 
he  had  never  been  here  before;  provided  him  also  with  dunnage  for  the 
vessel,  and  bought  broken  stowage  on  account  of  the  ship.  Am  certain 
that  the  purchase  of  the  dunnage  was  made  before  my  interview  with  the 
British  Consul,  but  do  not  recoll.cct  whether  the  broken  stowage  was  pur¬ 
chased,  or  not,  before  that  time;  the  broken  stowage  was  about  five  thou- 


sand  staves.  The  first  notice  I  had  of  the  ship’s  arrival  was  a  call  from 
Captain  York,  who  wanted  his  mate  discharged.  I  referred  him  to  the 
Consul. 

Question  bu  Mr.  Barker. — Are  you  in  the  employ  of  Mr.  Peter 
Maxwell? 

Answer. — -I  am  to  be  found  there  when  wanted. 

Cross-Examination  resumed. 

After  Captain  York  had  got  two  or  three  hundred  bales  on  board,  he 
asked  me  what  he  was  to  do,  as  the  ship  was  standing  still.  I  referred 
him  back  to  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.,  as  they  were  bound  to  furnish  the 
whole  cargo.  I  referred  Captain  York  to  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.,  before 
the  ship  commenced  loading. 


Communications  marked  No.  1,  referred  to  in  the  testimony  of  R.  H.' 
Chilton  : 


“  Captain  York  : 

Sir — Meet  me  at  the  British  Consul’s,  at  10  o’clock  to-morrow  morning;  bring  the  officers 
of  the  ship  and  two  of  the  boys  with  you.  Yours,  truly, 

(Signed,)  R.  H.  CHILTON. 

April  4th. 


New  Orleans,  5  April,  1845. 

“  Cai>tain  York: 

Sir— Her  B.  M.  Consul  having  this  day  placed  Mr.  Scott  upon  the  register  of  the  Aide  ' 
baran,  as  Master  of  the  said  Barque,  you  will  please  give  up  charge  of  said  Barque  to  him. 
Yours,  truly, 

(Signed,)  R.  H.  CHILTON. 


Monday  Evening,  } 

On  board  the  Barque  Aldebaran,  ) 

Mr.  York  : 

Sir — Notwithstanding  the  Consul’s  orders,  I  understand  you  have  been  on  board  lliis  ship, 
interfering  with  Captain  Scott  in  his  duty,  i  have  now  to  say,  that  you  will  be  allowed  to 
come  on  board  this  vessel  once  more  only  ,  which  will  be  to  allow  you  to  take  your  property, 
clothes,  &c.  out  of  her;  after  that  you  will  not  be  allowed  over  the  gangway.  I  have  also 
to  request,  that,  as  soon  as  possible,  you  will  render  me  your  accounts. 

Yours,  truly, 

(Signed,)  R.  H.  CHILTON. 


Letter  marked  A,  referred  to  in  the  testimony  of  It.  H.  Chilton ; 

Hull,  lOJan’y,  1815. 

Capt.  W.  B.  York, 

Of  the  Barque  Aldebaran  : 

Sir — You  will  proceed  with  the  “Aldebaran”  to  New  Orleans,  making  of  course  the  best 
of  your  way,  and  on  your  arrival  there,  address  the  ship  to  Messrs.  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co., 
who  will  have  instructions  respecting  the  loading  of  your  vessel.  We  are  informed  that  at 
this  season  of  the  year  it  is  advisable  to  make  to  the  southward  as  far  as  the  latitude  of  Ala 
deira  before  you  make  much  westing,  especially  if  you  can  make  good  way  to  the  Bouth  at 
2 


10 


tlio  same  lime,  and  you  keep  edging  to  the  westward.  On  your. arrival  you  will  bear  in 
mind  that  the  house  have  the  option  of  loading  you  for  Hull  or  Liverpool,  and  when  your 
ship  has  her  ballast  trimmed  and  your  dunnage  laid,  you  will  send  a  notice  to  Gordon,  Wy¬ 
lie  &  Co.,  as  per  annexed,  and  you  must  copy  it  in  your  Log-Book,  and  note  therein  the  day 
and  hour  you  delivered  it  to  them,  and  to  whom  it  was  delivered  ;  and  you  will  not  fail  to 
send  us,  per  Halifax  steamer,  and  also  by  packet  ship  by  New  York,  the  price  current  last 
published  when  you  gave  notice.  You  will  enquire  if  there  will  be  much  weight  and 
of  what  kind,  for  your  guidance  in  arranging  your  ballast  for  the  most  advantageous  and 
proper  stowage.  Take  care  to  preserve  the  cargo  from  damage  as  much  as  possible  by  mat¬ 
ting  the  masts,  pump  well,  bits,  &c.,and  byputtingold  boards  in  the  sides  of  the  ship.  The 
freight  of  cotton  is  agreed  for,  but  for  the  freight  of  other  articles  you  will  have  to  agree, 
and  this  must  be  your  guide :  if  cotton  freights  to  Liverpool,  per  price  current,  are  three  far- 
thimgs  pr.  lb.,  flour  must  be  six  shillings  per  barrel;  linseed  cake,  in  bulk,  three  pounds  per 
ton,  and  in  casks  ten  shillings  more;  and  hogsheads  of  tobacco  must  be  equal  to  ten  barrels 
of  flour;  wet  salted  hides  one  shilling  each  hide  (not  bundle,)  and  in  these  proportions  if 
cotton  is  higher  or  lower,  per  price  current. 

You  will  pay  great  attention  to  Ihe  pressing  of  the  cotton, and  if  not  done  to  your  satisfac¬ 
tion  object  to  it;  if  a  small  gratuity  to  the  foreman  will  get  it  better  done,  promise  them  it, 
but  of  course  give  nothing  if  slovenly  done,  and  complain  to  the  merchants,  and  say,  as  the 
ship  pays  for  it,  you  expect  it  to  be  done  in  the  best  possible  manner. 

Provision  the  ship  for  tbe  homeward  passage,  that  is  with  beef  and  pork.  But  as  beef  and 
pork  will  be  moderate  in  England,  you  must  see  the  quality  is  such  that  it  will  keep,  before 
you  take  any  very  large  stock.  Take  care  and  keep  your  sails  and  rigging  free  from  chafe, 
and  as  we  know  studding  sails  are  often  neglected,  let  them  be  well  looked  to,  as  well  as 
others.  Let  the  provisions  be  served  out  in  a  proper  manner,  and  let  all  have  enough,  but 
nothing  must  be  wasted;  and  in  all  things  try  and  keep  your  expenses  down.  And  do  not 
be  above  asking  advice  from  men  of  more  experience. 

If  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.  have  no  articles  of  weight  for  you,  apply  to  Mr.  Peter  Maxwell, 
who  may  have  some,  but  you  are  allowed  to  take  weight  from  other  parties,  namely:  lead, 
lard,  seed  or  flour.  Messrs.  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.  will  supply  you  with  what  cash  you 
require  for  ship’s  use,  and  disburse  your  own  money  and  procure  the  largest  discounts  you  can. 

Many  accidents  have  occurred  by  vessels  getting  foul  of  each  other,  which,  in  our 
opinion,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten  is  owing  to  want  ofa  proper  look-out.  You  will  therefore 
insist  on  those  who  have  the  charge  of  the  watch,  from  time  to  time,  that  they  see  a  proper 
look  out  is  kept,  and  no  skulking  allowed. 

We  again  call  your  particular  attention  to  not  taking  in  any  wet  bales  of  cotton;  if  you 
find  any  such,  (and  you  must  see  every  bale,)  let  them  be  laid  aside,  and  call  the  attention  of 
the  house  that  ships  them  to  their  condition,  and  if  they  say  they  are  in  proper  condition 
and  desire  you  to  take  them,  get  a  written  order  to  that  effect;  but  if  they  refuse  to  give  a 
written  order,  put  in  your  Log-Book  what  passed,  and  note  in  the  Log-Book  their  mark,  and 
say  how  many  of  each  mark  are  objected  to,  and  sign  such  account  at  the  time,  as  well  as 
your  mate;  but  we  hope  no  such  will  be  offered  to  you.  From  various  attempts  made  to 
throw  the  damages  upon  the  ship,  you  must  perceive  how  necessary  it  is  to  be  on  the  guard 
against  these  things. 

We  understand  that  olck“  flat  boats”  are  to  be  purchased  in  New  Orleans  at  a  very  low 
rate,  and  you  must  consult  with  Mr.  Chilton  as  to  the  best  method  of  procuring  one  at  as 
little  cost  as  possible,  and  with  as  little  labor  in  breaking  up,  for  the  purpose  of  dunnaging  the 
ship’s  sides,  &c.,  &c. 

We  are,  sir, 

Yours,  respectfully, 

(Signed,)  FIOLDERNESS  &  CHILTON. 


Document  marked  B,  referred  to  in  the  testimony  ofR.  H.  Chilton: 

Hull,  1st  January,  1845. 

MEMORANDUM  OF  AGREEMENT  : 

That  William  Broader  York  goes  Master  of  the  Aldebaran,  of  Liverpool,  and  that  his 
wages  are  to  be  eight  pounds  per  month.  The  cabin  to  be  found  in  all  necessary  stores  by 
the  owners.  The  nett  cabin  freight  to  be  equally  divided  between  the  Master  and  owners. 
The  master  to  have  one  third  cabin  passage  money.  The  master  also  to  find  his  own  chro¬ 
nometer,  having  one  guinea  and  a  half  per  voyage  allowed  him  in  consideration  thereof;  he 


11 


is  also  to  be  kept  constantly  insured  from  loss  by  the  owners,  for  forty  pounds  upon  his  clothes 
and  wages,  to  commence  from  16th  December,  1844.  These  conditions  to  remain  in  force 
so  long  as  his  services  may  be  required,  and  no  longer. 

(Signed.)  T.  HOLDERNESS. 

W.  B.  YORK. 


RECORDER’S  COURT— MUNICIPALITY  NO.  3. 

(  THIRD  DAY.  ) 


Friday,  April  18 th,  1845. 

State  }  This  cause  came  on  this  day  for  trial,  Jacob  Barker  ap- 

vs.  >  pearing  for  the  accused,  when,  after  hearing  testimony, 

W.  B.  York.  5  the  cause  was  continued  to  to-morrow,  at  1  o’clock,  P.  M., 
at  the  instance  of  Mr.  Chilton,  in  order  to  allow  him  to  consult  counsel 
about  producing  his  authority. 

TESTIMONY  TAKEN  IN  OPEN  COURT - 18TII  APRIL,  1845. 

Rebutting  Testimony. 

Thomas  Hill,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says,  that  he  is  acquaint¬ 
ed  with  the  hand-writing  of  Mr.  Gordon,  of  the  firm  of  Gordon,  Wylie  & 
Co.,  being  shown  a  note  signed  by  Alexander  Gordon,  addressed  to  Mr. 
Jacob  Barker,  marked  C,  says  that  the  note  is  signed  by  Mr.  Gordon. 

Jacor  Barker,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says,  that  he  saw  Mr. 
Gordon  sign  the  above  note  this  day. 

Thomas  Hill,  called  again — Is  acquainted  with  Captain  York — has 
known  him  seven  or  eight  days — has  seen  him  on  board  of  the  barque  Alde- 
baran — his  conduct  on  board  was  very  peaceable  and  orderly — used  no 
violence  or  threats  towards  the  mate  or  crew — ordered  the  mate  to  order 
the  crew  to  return  to  their  duty,  and  ordered  the  light  sails  up  to  dry  or  to 
air,  and  to  cover  the  stern  boat  with  the  sails — this  happened  about  three 
days  ago — the  answer  given  by  Mr.  Scott  was:  “  We  do  not  obey  your 
orders;  we  do  not  consider  you  as  Captain  of  the  vessel;  we  have  authority 
from  the  British  Consul  to  bundle  all  you  buggars  over  the  side,  and  if 
you  do  not  go,  I  muster  my  force,  the  crew,  and  send  you  where  such 
buggars  ought  to  be.” 

After  being  thus  provoked,  the  Captain  manifested  no  violence,  and 
walked  on  shore  with  Capt.  Fisher,  of  the  British  ship  “  William  Abrams,” 
whom  they  also  threatened  with  expulsion  by  force,  as  well  as  witness— 
the  Captain  (York)  went  into  the  cabin  to  get  some  papers,  and  a  person 
by  the  name  of  Mason,  second  mate  of  the  barque,  threw  off  his  jacket  and 
hat  and  said,  “Any  buggar  that  entered  the  cabin  would  be  tumbled  out, 
as  the  purpose  of  the  Captain  and  his  two  friends  came  for,  was  to  drink  tin3 
wine  and  porter  that  was  left.” 


12 


Captain  Fisher  and  witness  were  not  allowed  to  enter  the  cabin,  but 
the  second  mate  placed  himself  in  the  gang-way  in  a  position  of  defence, 
and  used  at  that  place  the  above  recited  language.  At  other  interviews 
on  board  of  the  ship,  saw  similar  conduct  and  disobedience  to  the  orders  of 
Captain  York,  on  the  part  of  Scott,  Mason  and  the  crew.  Was  on  board 
of  the  ship  a  few  hours  before  the  arrest  of  Captain  York,  with  him.  Cap¬ 
tain  York  was  not,  to  his  knowledge  or  belief,  on  board  subsequent  to  the 
period  above  stated — he  never  saw,  on  the  part  of  Captain  York,  any  con¬ 
duct  by  word,  deed  or  gesture,  indicating  a  disposition  to  violate  the  peace. 
The  condition  of  the  ship  was  such  that  it  was  highly  creditable  to  Cap¬ 
tain  York  as  a  ship  Master,  she  having  been  brought  into  port  in  the  best 
condition.  Witness  has  been  a  ship  Master  for  twenty-five  years. 

Thomas  Fisher,  Master  of  the  British  ship  “William  Abrams,”  of 
Greenock,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says,  that  he  corroborates  the 
above  testimony,  (with  the  exception  that  he  did  not  hear  the  orders  given 
about  the  sails,)  so  far  as  relates  to  the  peaceable  conduct  of  Captain  York 
and  the  condition  of  the  ship,  and  also  the  language  used  by  Scott  and 
Mason — was  in  company  with  Captain  York  when  he  applied  to  a  lawyer 
for  advice  as  to  the  difficult  position  he  was  placed  in.  The  lawyer  ad¬ 
vised  Captain  York  to  return  on  board  of  his  ship  and  attend  to  his  duties, 
and  whatever  opposition  or  provocation  might  be  used  towards  him,  to  use 
no  violence,  but  to  rely  upon  the  courts  of  this  country  for  protection. 

Captain  Hill  called  again — Was  also  present,  and  corroborates  the 
above  testimony. 

Captain  Fishek,  called  again  —  Has  seen  Mr.  Mason,  second  mate, 
in  a  state  of  intoxication  on  board  of  the  ship  two  or  three  times.  Had 
once  to  make  application  to  his  honor  the  Recorder  to  be  allowed  to  pass 
unmolested,  which  protection  was  granted  about  a  half  an  hour  after  it 
was  asked.  Witnesses’  vessel  is  the  next  ship  astern  of  the  Aldebaran. 

Riciiaed  Jones,  master  of  the  British  barque  “Ellen  Bryson,”  of 
Glasgow,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says  that  he  is  acquainted  with 
Captain  York  ;  was  on  board  of  the  ship  on  the  day  Captain  York  was 
arrested ;  was  on  board  between  two  and  three  o’clock,  P.  M.  Left  the 
ship  with  Captain  York,  and  was  in  company  with  him  when  he  was  ar¬ 
rested.  Captain  York  never  used  any  threats  or  violence  while  on  board 
of  the  ship  to  induce  witness  to  believe  that  he  had  any  intention  to 
break  the  peace,  or  from  which  such  a  conclusion  could  be  easily  drawn 
by  others.  The  condition  of  the  ship  is  such,  that  it  is  highly  creditable  to 
Captain  York  ;  the  disposition  of  Scott,  Mason  and  crew,  was  to  resist  the 
authority  of  Captain  York  ;  saw  Mason  intoxicated  once  on  board  of  the 
ship. 

George  Brock,  master  of  the  British  ship  Glentanner,  of  Aberdeen, 
being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says  that  he  is  acquainted  with  Captain 
York ;  has  known  him  for  about  ten  days  ;  accompanied  him  (Captain 
York)  on  board,  and  heard  him  give  the  orders  about  the  sails  ;  after  the 
orders  were  given,  the  second  mate  seemed  disposed  to  obey  them,  but 
said  he  dared  not.  Witness  made  a  remark  to  Captain  York  about  the 
locks  being  forced  open  ;  Mr.  Scott  said,  “we  opened  them  all,  and  we 


13 


cannot  find  the  keys.”  Scott  threatened  to  bundle  witness  by  the  neck 
out  of  the  cabin  of  the  ship.  Captain  Jones  was  with  witness’  in  the 
cabin  ;  witness  and  others  went  on  board  at  the  request  of  Captain  York. 
Captain  York  used  no  threats  or  violence  in  that  interview,  or  at  any  other, 
to  his  knowledge.  Captain  York  had  to  send  for  his  keys,  he  believes,  to 
the  steward.  Scott’s  conduct  to  Captain  York  was  very  abusive,  he  stood 
in  the  cabin,  holding  his.  arm  up,  and  said,  “I  have  only  to  call  the  ship’s 
company  aft,  to  bundle  you  all  ashore.  Mason  was  part  of  the  time  in 
the  cabin  and  part  of  the  time  on  deck,  and  was  tipsy.  Witness  corrobo¬ 
rated  the  testimony  of  other  witnesses,  as  to  the  condition  of  the  ship. 

Thomas  Stringer  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says,  that  documents 
marked  D.  and  E.,  now  produced,  are  copies  of  two  letters,  signed  by 
Mr.  Jacob  Barker,  and  delivered  to  the  British  consul  by  him  ;  and  that 
document  F.  now  produced,  is  a  letter  from  Mr.  W illiam  Mure,  her  Britannic 
Majesty’s  Consul,  to  Mr.  Jacob  Barker. 


Note  referred  to  in  Thomas  Hill’s  testimony,  and  marked  C  : 


Mr.  Barker  : 

Dear  Sir — At  your  request  I  have  to  state  that  Captain  York  called  at  the  office  of  A. 
Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.,  and  reported  the  arrival  here  of  the  ship  Aldebaran,  on  the  9th  or 
10th  March,  and  we  havo  no  complaint  to  make  of  his  conduct  since. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed.)  A.  GORDON. 


Documents  D,  E,  and  F,  referred  to  in  the  testimony  of  Thomas  Stringer: 
DOCUMENT  D. 

New  Orleans,  14th  April,  1845. 

Wm.  Mure,  Esq., 

II.  B.  Majesty’s  Consul,  &c. : 

Dear  Sir— I  havo  received  your  letter  of  this  date.  In  reply  to  the  allegation  about 
Captain  York  “violating  the  46th  and  47th  sections  of  the  Navigation  Act,  7th  and  8th, 
Vic.  Cap.  112,  by  which  he  has  been  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  is  liable  to  fine  and 
imprisonment  ”  (For  the  better  understanding  of  these  sections  see  appendix.) 

I  have  to  remark,  that  Captain  York  will  be  prepared  to  defend  himself  whenever 
called  to  an  account  before  a  competent  tribunal,  to  pass  on  the  matter. 

As  to  his  having  been  superseded,  he  does  not  admit  that  he  has  been,  orthat  he  can  be 
superseded  in  the  commandot  the  Aldebaran,  by  any  otherauthority  than  that  from  which 
he  derived  his  command;  to  that  authority  he  is  prepared  to  submit;  and  if,  as  you  say,  you 
have  acted  with  the  sanction  of  the  accredited  agent  of  the  owner,  it  would  seem  to  be 
incumbent  on  such  agent  of  the  owner  to  produce  his  authority;  beyond  which  it  was  not 
my  intention  to  ask  for  any  explanation. 

To  prevent  the  possibility  of  a  mistake,  Captain  York  wishes  you  to  be  informed  that 
his  instructions  are  precise  as  to  all  the  points  of  his  duties;  the  observance  of  which  disaf¬ 
fected  a  portion  of  his  crew,  in  which  instructions  is  to  be  found  the  following  sentence: 

“  On  arrival  there,  address  the  ship  to  Messrs.  Gordon,  Wylie  ij'  Co.,  who  will  have  instruc¬ 
tions  respecting  the  loading  of  the  vessel .” 


14 


No  intimation  is  given  of  any  other  agent,  consequently  he  cannot  recognize  any  otjier 
person  as  the  accredited  agent  of  his  owner,  without  the  production  of  credentials  duly 
authenticated.  Mr.  Gordon  states  that  he  has  not  sanctioned  any  interference  with  his  com¬ 
mand;  that  lie  is  not  knowing  to  any  irregularities  on  the  part  of  Captain  York;  and  that 
so  far  as  he  knows,  he  has  performed  his  duties  faithfully  as  commander  of  the  Aldebaran. 

I  am,  dear  sir, 

Your  most  ob't.  servant, 

[Signed.]  JACOB  BARKER. 


DOCUMENT  E. 

New  Orleans,  14th  April,  1845. 

William  Mure,  Esa.,  ^ 

Consul  of  H.  B.  Majesty,  Victoria, 

Queen  of  Great  Britain,  &c.,  &c., 

At  New  Orleans; 

Dear  Sir — Captain  York,  commander  of  the  barque  “  Aldebaran,”  has  called  upon  me 
to  aid  him  in  restraining  the  interference  of  certain  persons,  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties 
as  master  of  said  vessel;  and  from  a  letter  received  by  Captain  York  from  Mr.  R.  H. 
Chilton,  you  are  referred  to,  as  authorizing  the  proceedings  complained  of. 

The  friendly  relations  which  have  always  subsisted  between  us  induces  me  to  notify 
you  of  Captain  York’s  determination  to  apply  to  the  courts  of  the  United  States  to  re¬ 
strain  all  interference  with  his  authority  as  master  of  said  vessel,  and  to  redress  the 
wrongs  which  he  thinks  have  been  done  him — before  I  proceed  to  take  out  writs  for  the 
arrest  of  such  trespassers  as  may  be  found  on  board,  or  such  of  the  crew  as  may  refuse 
obedience  to  his  orders. 

Should  any  other  person  than  Captain  York  have  authority  to  represent  the  owner  of 
the  vessel,  I  presume  the  whole  affair  can  be  amicably  settled,  the  first  step  towards 
which  will  be  the  exhibition  of  such  authority. 

Very  respectfully, 

Your  ob’t.  serv’t, 

(Signed.)  JACOB  BARKER. 


DOCUMENT  F. 

British  Consulate,  New  Orleans,  April  14th,  1845, 

Jacob  Barker,  Esa., 

New  Orleans : 

Dear  Sir — I  have  received  your  letter  of  this  date,  relative  to  the  British  barque  “  Al- 
dcbaran,”  and  notifying  me  that  it  is  the  intention  of  Captain  York  to  apply  to  the  courts 
of  the  United  States  to  restore  his  authority  as  master  of  said  vessel. 

In  reply  thereto,  I  have  merely  to  state,  that  in  superseding  Captain  York  in  the  com  ¬ 
mand  of  this  vessel,  for  irregularities  in  his  conduct,  and  for  violating  the  46th  and  4~th 
sections  of  the  Navigation  Act,  7th  and  8th  Vic.  Cap.  112,  by  which  he  has  been  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor,  and  is  liable  to  fine  and  imprisonment,  I  have  acted  with  ihe  sanction 
of  the  accredited  agent  of  the  owners,  in  this  port,  and  I  must  decline  any  farther  expla¬ 
nation  regarding  my  authority,  as  H.  M.  Consul,  for  dismissing,  or  sanctioning  the  dismis¬ 
sal  of  a  British  captain. 

I  am,  dear  sir, 

Your  most  obed’t  serv’t, 

(Signed.)  WM.  MURE. 

H.  B.  M.  Consul. 


Note,  by  the  Compiler. — For  the  proper  understanding  of  the  foregoing  correspon¬ 
dence,  document  E.  should  be  read  first,  then  Fi.  and  lastly  D.;  they  would  have  been  so 
placed,  but  for  the  reason,  that  they  were  otherwise  arranged  in  the  Rocord,  of  which 
this  purports  to  be  a  faithful  copy. 


15 


RECORDER’S  COURT— MUNICIPALITY  NO.  3. 

(fourth  DAY.)  ■ 

Saturday ,  April  19th,  1845. 

State  }  This  cause  came  on  for  trial  this  day,  Jacob  Barker  ap- 

vs.  >  pearing  for  the  accused,  when  the  following  testimony  was 

W.  B.  York,  y  received  and  proceedings  were  had;  a  “ subpoena  duces 
tecum ”  having  been  issued  against  Edward  Mason,  to  produce  the  Log- 
Book  of  the  Aldebaran,  the  said  Mason  came  into  court  with  said  Log- 
Book. 


TESTIMONY  TAKEN  IN  OPEN  COURT,  APRIL  19TH,  1845. 

Thomas  Stringer,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says,  that  Captain 
York’s  chronometer  was  restored  to  him  by  Mr.  Chilton,  it  having  been 
taken  from  him  by  a  process  of  Judge  Jackson’s  court,  at  the  instance  of 
R.  H.  Chilton,  representing  himself  as  the  agent  of  the  barque  Aldebaran, 
which  suit  was  dismissed  at  the  request  of  Mr.  R.  H.  Chilton.  Witness 
accompanied  R.  H.  Chilton  to  his  office,  who  gave  him  the  chronometer. 

Thomas  Frazer,  Master  of  the  British  bargue  “Pollock,”  of  Glasgow, 
being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says,  that  he  has  heard  the  testimony  here¬ 
tofore  given,  and  confirms  the  testimony  of  the  other  witnesses,  as  to  the 
peaceable  conduct  of  Captain  York,  the  good  condition  of  the  ship,  and  the 
abusive  deportment  of  Scott  and  Mason  to  Captain  York,  when  he  went 
on  board.  Was  on  board  the  afternoon  of  the  day  Captain  York  was  ar¬ 
rested,  and  Mr.  Chilton  and  the  British  Consul  were  there  at  the  same 
time.  Captain  York’s  conduct  in  that  interview  was  very  civil  and  very 
quiet  in  every  respect.  Left  the  ship  before  Captain  York — about  two 
hours  after  that  time,  he  was  informed  by  Mr.  Cameron,  (a  merchant  on 
the  Levee,)  that  the  police  officers  were  seeking  Captain  York.  Captain 
York  was  then  in  company  with  witness  and  others  in  the  street.  Cap¬ 
tain  York  proceeded  down  Port  street,  and  met  the  officer,  who  was  on 
horseback,  just  above  Capt.  Hill’s  house;  the  officer  told  Capt.  York  that 
he  was  his  prisoner;  another  officer  came  up  immediately  with  a  warrant, 
and  they  took  him  away  to  prison.  Witness  saw  Captain  York  in  prison, 
locked  up  with  other  prisoners — from  the  dirty  apparel  of  those  in  prison 
he  concluded  that  they  were  sailors. 

Edward  Mason,  second  mate  of  the  Aldebaran,  being  duly  sworn,  de¬ 
poses  and  says,  that  the  book  shown  to  him  is  the  Journal  or  proceedings 
of  the  log  of  the  Aldebaran — a  portion  of  it  is  written  by  himself.  Under 
date  of  Thursday,  27th  February,  1845,  the  last  half  page  shown  him  is 
in  his  own  hand-writing.  Under  date  of  Sunday,  the  2d  March,  1845,  the 
last  half  page  shewn  him  in  his  own  hand  writing,  with  the  exception  of 
the  signature  of  “  W.  B.  York,  Master,”  in  both  instances.  Under  date 
of  Thursday,  13th  March,  1845,  all  there  is  under  that  date,  with  the  ex¬ 
ception  of  the  signature  of  Captain  York,  is  in  his  own  hand-writing. 


1G 


* 

The  logs  were  not  made  up  at  the  time  of  their  dates,  but  as  soon  after  as 
he  had  leisure;  sometimes  a  day  or  two  after. 

Questioned  by  Mr.  Scott,  ( of  the  Jlldebaran.) 

What  he  has  written  in  said  Log-Book  is  not  true,  according  to  his  no¬ 
tions — some  part  of  it  was  written  on  a  slate,  and  ordered  by  Captain 
York  to  be  copied  in  the  Log-Book — on  the  28th  February,  1845,  at  about 
4  o’clock,  P.  M.,  he  copied  in  the  record  what  is  said  to  have  happened  on 
the  27  th  of  the  same  month. 

Examination  continued  by  Mr.  Barker. 

The  entry  under  date  March  11th,  1845,  which  states  that  Mr.  Scott 
was  off  duty  and  on  shore  without  leave  was  untrue — the  entry  under  date 
of  Sunday,  the  2d  March,  1845,  which  states  that  “James  Scott  said  he 
would  do  as  he  liked  for  the  Master,”  is  incorrect;  the  words  used  on  the 
occasion  were  as  follows :  “  He  should  speak  to  whom  he  liked.'”  Wit¬ 
ness,  on  being  requested  to  look  over  the  book  and  see  if  he  could  find  any 
other  errors,  and  particularly  on  the  day’s  work  heretofore  referred  to,  says 
that  he  does  not  find  any  other  error,  nor  does  he  at  the  moment 
recollect  of  any  other.  Mr.  Scott  was  put  off  duty  as  chief  mate  on  the 
27th  February,  1845,  and  continued  off  duty  until  he  left  the  barque  here  in 
New  Orleans.  Witness  left  the  Recorder’s  -Court  of  his  own  accord,  after 
he  had  brought  the  Log-Book  in  company  with  Mr.  Scott — had  no  conver¬ 
sation  with  Mr.  Scott  as  to  the  testimony  he  was  to  give  in  this  matter. 
Witness  being  shown  the  keys  of  the  Aldebaran  produced  by  Captain  York, 
and  being  asked  if  he  recognized  them,  said  that  he  only  recognized  two 
keys,  one  of  them  as  the  key  of  his  own  berth,  and  the  other  as  that  of  the 
Captain’s  room. 

Captain  York  offered  the  testimony  of  Henry  Varian,  chief  mate  of  the 
British  ship  Bradshaw,  of  Liverpool,  to  prove  the  intemperance  of  Mr. 
Scott,  which  the  court  ruled  out  as  not  pertinent  to  the  case. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  LOG. 


Thursday ,  21th  February,  1845,  5  A-  M. 

The  Master  came  on  deck  and  found  the  mate  keeping  the  ship  off  her  course,  asked  him 
the  reason;  the  mate  then  began  to  abuse  him — Master  ordered  the  mate  to  make  the  lee 
studding  sails  up;  mate  said  he  would  not,  he  would  be  d — d  if  he  would;  continued  to 
abuse  the  Master  and  left  offduty. 


Sunday ,  2d  of  March,  1845. 

James  Scott  endeavoring  to  keep  the  crew  in  conversation;  Master  told  him  not  to  keep 
the  people  from  their  duty;  James  Scott  said  he’  would  do  as  he  liked  for  the  Master, 


17 


James  Scott  off  duty  and  on  shore  without  leave. 


Tuesday,  llth  March.  1845. 


Thursday  13 111  March,  1845. 

Throughout  these  twenty-four  hours  thick,  cloudy  W.  with  heavy  rain;  employed  trim¬ 
ming  and  levelling  the  ballast  and  getting  the  water  casks  upon  deck;  carpenters  as  yester¬ 
day;  the  Master  applied  to  the  Consul  to  take  James  Scott  out  of  the  ship,  as  he  had  done  no 
duty  on  board  since  the  27th  of  February,  at  5  P.  M.  James  Scott  took  all  his  clothes  out 
of  the  ship. 

Here  the  evidence  closed. 

Mr.  Barker  then  addressed  the  Court — animadverted  on  the  testimony 
offered,  and  in  the  most  conclusive  manner  showed  that  not  one  particle  of 
evidence  had  been  brought  forward,  or  even  attempted  by  Mr.  Chilton  to 
sustain  the  charge  he  had  made  against  Captain  York,  and  demanded  the 
discharge  of  his  client.  He  said  of  Mr.  Chilton,  that  when  he  found  the 
current  of  public  opinion — of  every  sensible  ship  master,  both  British  and 
American,  or  nearly  so,  arrayed  against  him  for  his  ridiculous  course  in 
this  whole  affair,  and  every  effort  in  his  power  had  been  made,  which,  if 
successful,  would  have  blasted  the  fair  fame  of  an  honest,  upright,  and  ca¬ 
pable  young  Captain — he  abandons  the  field,  by  asking  first  to  be  allowed 
to  withdraw  his  charge — then  that  being  denied,  he  makes  no  other  appear¬ 
ance,  and  fails  to  produce  the  authority  which  he  had  undertaken  on  two 
different  occasions  to  do.  In  place  of  which,  he  appears  in  a  morning 
newspaper,  intimating  that  this  court  is  not  a  competent  tribunal !  to  call 
on  him  to  show  his  authority  to  act  as  agent.  Here  an  unparalleled  case 
is  presented;  an  individual  claims  of  another  to  surrender  to  him  valuable 
property  of  which  he  is  in  lawful  possession,  belonging  to  a  third  party; 
his  authority  is  called  for,  and  refused;  violent  possession  is  then  attempted, 
resistance  to  such  an  act  apprehended,  when  the  power  of  this  Court  is 
-  invoked  on  the  oath  of  this  pretende-d  agent,  who  describes  himself  in  such 
oath,  as  agent  of  the  Aldebaran;  his  agency  is  disputed,  and  the  Court  of 
his  (Chilton’s)  own  selection  requires  him  to  produce  it.  To  object  to  the 
right  of  the  person  in  possession,  to  see  the  authority  of  another  claiming  a 
right  to  exercise  control  over  property  in  his  especial  charge,  before  he 
surrendered  the  property  of  a  third  party,  or  to  the  Court,  to  see  the  author¬ 
ity  before  it  recognized  the  agency,  is  too  absurd  to  need  argument. 

This,  if  nothing  else  were  wanting,  would  show  that  such  an  act  of  op¬ 
pression  had  not  been  heard  of  in  this  country — in  fact  said  Mr.  B.,  it  is 
monstrous!  He  then  went  on  to  show  the  manner  in  which  this  pretend¬ 
ed  agent  had  acted  throughout  the  whole  affair — an  unlawful  inter¬ 
ference  without  authority — men  under  his  authority  threatening  to  break  the 
peace  themselves  if  Captain  York  did  not  submit — go  and  take  an  oath, 
and  put  the  oppressed  Captain  into  a  loathsome  prison,  lest  they  should 
provoke  him  to  break  the  peace.  When  your  Honor  considers  that  the 
British  Consul  had  been  notified  that  Captain  York  would  rely  on  the 
Courts  of  the  United  States  to  repress  the  interruption  to  his  command, 
that  Mr.  Chilton  had  been  an  eye-witness  to,  and  the  lamb-like  forbear¬ 
ance  of  Captain  York,  pursuant  to  the  advise  of  his  counsel,  under  the  most 
aggravated  provocation,  the  conclusion  will  be  irresistible  that  the  oath 
3 


IS 


taken  was  a  very  extraordinary  one;  and  the  attempt  to  impeach  the  Log- 
Book  so  utterly  tailed,  that  the  witness  (Mason)  became  an  object  of  pity. 
He  (the  witness)  said  the  record,  written  by  himself,  was  untrue,  for  this,  that 
it  slated  “James  Scott,  he  said  he  would  do  as  he  liked  for  the  Master,” 
when  it  should  have  said,  that  James  Scott  said  he  should  speak  to  whom  he 
liked;  and  that,  after  a  close  investigation,  that  he  could  not  find  any  oilier 
errors. 

Mr.  Barker  here  read  the  letter  of  instructions  to  Captain  York  from  the 
owners;  he  alluded  to  its  forcible  and  able  style,  its  explicitness,  not  a  point 
but  what  was  treated  upon,  for  all  contingencies.  Messrs.  Gordon,  Wy¬ 
lie  &  Co.  were  appointed  in  terms  the  consignees,  who  say  that  Captain 
York  reported  himself  to  them  on  his  arrival,  and  that  they  had  not  any 
complaint  to  make:  the  Captain  is  required  to  pay  his  own  disbursements, 
he  is  to  conduct  the  correspondence,  and  attend  to  all  the  business  of  the 
ship,  which  is  detailed  with  great  precision — no  room  left  for  doubt  on  any 
point — more  intelligent,  able  and  proper  instructions  from  an  owner  to  his 
Captain,  had  not  met  his  (Mr.  B’s-)  eye. 

Mr.  Barker  then  referred  to  the  evidence  to  show  the  strictness  with 
which  he  had  carried  out  his  instructions  to  the  very  letter.  The  Captain 
was  ordered  to  allow  “  no  skulking;”  he  comes  on  deck  and  finds,  at  the 
dead  hour  of  the  night,  that  the  Mate,  having  charge  had  allowed  her  to  be 
put  several  points  off  her  course;  of  this  he  complains,  and  justly  so,  particu¬ 
larly  as  his  ship  being  then  among  the  West  India  Islands,  was  in  a  dan¬ 
gerous  part  ofher  passage.  The  Mate  becomes  abusive,  when  he  is  told 
to  go  off  duty;  this  was  the  head  and  front  of  the  offence  of  Captain  York; 
ho  no  doubt  preserved  strict  discipline  among  his  crew,  as  he  was  com¬ 
manded  to  do.  And  here  said  Mr.  Barker,  I  undertake  to  say  that  no  Cap¬ 
tain,  and  particularly  a  young  man,  the  first  voyage  as  commander  could 
carry  his  orders  into  effect  without  creating  a  rebellious  spirit  on  the  part 
of  the  crew — there  is  something  in  the  human  breast  that  chafes  against 
authority,  and  especially  against  usurpation,  and  although  sailors  are  the 
most  generous  class  of  men  on  earth,  they  would  be  the  most  likely  to  rebel. 
Mr.  Barker  said  he  spoke  from  experience,  he  was  born  on  an  island  and 
had  often  snuffed  the  sea  breeze  and  dodged  the  salt  water  spray,  and 
although  he  had  left  his  blue  jacket  and  trousers  on  the  ship’s  forecastle 
when  a  boy,  yet  he  then  contracted  an  attachment  for  nautical  men  which 
has  never  forsaken  him:  he  looked  upon  his  client  as  of  his  clan,  and  an 
honest  Jack  Tar  was  his  admiration. 

Mr  Barker  then  went  on  to  shew  further  that  Captain  York  had  obeyed 
his  orders.  He  was  instructed,  in  case  of  necessity,  to  go  to  Mr.  Richard 
Harrison  Chilton  for  advice  about  the  purchase  of  an  old  fiat-boat,  for  dun¬ 
nage.  The  purchasing  of  dunnage  was  the  only  thing  done  by  Chilton, 
before  the  attempt  was  made  to  supersede  Captain  York,  according  to  his 
own  statement,  consequently  every  service  contemplated  to  be  done  by 
Mr.  C.  had  been  performed. 

As  to  the  apprehensions  which  he  had  heard  expressed  by  many  British 
ship-masters,  in  consequence  of  the  British  Consul’s  statement,  that  he 
(the  Consul)  had  “  as  much  authority  over  a  refractory  captain  of  a  vessel 


as  ho  had  over  a  mate,  a  sailor,  or  an  apprentice,”  and  “that  England  did 
not  make  one  law  for  the  captain  and  another  for  the  sailor;”  he  begged  to 
say  that  there  was  nothing  to  fear,  and  that  there  was  no  occasion  lor  feel¬ 
ing  sensitive,  because  the  learned  Consul  had  made  such  an  exposition  of 
his  supposed  powers. 

A  moment’s  reflection  will  tell  them  that  Her  Britannic  Majesty’s  Con¬ 
sul  has  not  a  particle  of  authority  over  either.  His  whole  authority,  under 
which  he  acted  in  this  case,  as  quoted  by  himself  in  his  letter,  in  evi¬ 
dence,  and  which  is  contained  in  the  46th  and  ,47th  sections  of  the  7th 
and  8th  Victoria,  Cap.  112.  Mr.  B.  read  those  sections,  and  said  that 
they  had  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  such  a  case  as  this,  and  gave  him  (the 
Consul)  no  more  authority  over  a  master,  than  they  do  of  the  command 
of  this  city.  A  more  unfortunate  reference  could  not  be  made.  The  sec¬ 
tions  quoted  are  plain  and  easy  of  comprehension;  and  the  whole  bearing 
is,  lor  the  protection  of  the  crews  of  British  vessels  against  the  tyranny 
of  the  captains.  Further,  what  is  the  Consul’s  authority  under  that  law? 
why  this,  merely  to  with-hold  'permission  from  the  captain,  who  may  wish  to 
discharge  his  males,  seamen,  or  apprentices,  and  if  such  captain  should 
discharge  either  in  a  foreign  port,  or  at  sea,  without  such  permission,  then 
the  captain  subjects  himself  to  a  penalty  and  imprisonment  on  proof  made 
before  the  Courts  of  the  British  realm  ;  the  law  quoted,  speaks  of  his 
authority  to  send  offenders  home  to  be  tried — but  we  have  no  treaty  stipu¬ 
lation  to  which  he  can  invoke  the  aid  of  our  Courts,  that  of  1815  having- 
expired,  and  the  “Ashburton”  Treaty  only  provides  for  the  return  of  fugi¬ 
tives  from  justice  from  the  British  dominions.  The  British  Consul  has  no 
authority  to  punish  even  one  of  the  crew  should  they  misbehave.  The  cap¬ 
tains  have  this  power,  and  they  alone,  subject  to  punishment  as  criminals, 
for  abusing  their  powers. 

When  complaint  is  made  to  the  Consul,  those  very  sections  dictate  his 
duty — lie  must  call  into  the  aid  of  such  commander  (nec ding  assistance  to 
subdue  mutiny  or  insubordination,  &c.,)  the  action  of  the  American  police, 
and  courts  of  law,  to  compel  obedience.  He  has  then  no  such  authority 
as  has  been  assumed  by  him,  and  he  stands  condemned  b  ythe  very  act 
under  which  he  thought  to  shelter  himself.  The  laws  of  England  make 
American  Courts  proper  places  to  apply  for  redress.  Mr.  Chilton  in  a 
published  card,  says  lie  is  willing  to  produce  his  authority  when  called  on 
by  a  proper  tribunal,  if  he  did  not  consider  this  place  proper,  why  apply 
to  it?  But,  said  Mr.  B.,  let  us  see  what  he  says  himself.  (Mr.  Barker 
here  read  a  card  from  him  in  the  Bulletin  of  Saturday.)  Mr.  B.  con¬ 
tinued  :  the  British  laws,  said  he,  makes  it  the  duty  of  Consuls  to 
protect  seamen,  and  to  provide  for  their  return  when  left  destitute  in  a 
foreign  port,  but  contains  no  one  clause  giving  them  the  power  to  inflict  pun 
ishment  on  an  apprentice,  much  less  on  a  seaman,  mate,  or  captain ! 

Already  has  this  rash  act.  produced  its  excitement  in  our  community, 
but  let  there  be  fifty  lashes  inflicted  on  a  British  sailor,  by  order  of  a  Con¬ 
sul,  and  Her  Majesty’s  representative  M  ill  soon  see  such  a  blaze  of  indig¬ 
nation  burst  forth  throughout  England,  as  would  annihilate  him  the  mo 
ment  he  should  return  home,  if  he  should  dare  attempt  to  go  there. 


20 


Mr.  R..  denied  that  he  possessed  the  least  shadow  of  authority  for 
hanging  the  commander  of  a  British  ship  adversely  to  her  owners;  even 
if  the  ship  was  in  London,  at  the  loot  of  the  Throne,  the  whole  power  of 
the  government  is  not  equal  to  the  task  !  If  the  captain  had  done  any 
wrong  there  were  means  of  punishing  him  by  proper  legal  process.  No 
such  thing  had  been  attempted — no,  the  supposed  sovereign  power  of  Her 
Britannic  Majesty’s  Consul  here,  led  him  to  be  the  judge  of  the  case,  “I 
am,  and  there  is  none  else,”  appears  to  be  his  determination,  and  under 
these  influences,  exercises  a  power  such  as  never  was  heard  of  in  Draco, 
nor  the  most  tyrannical  powers  of  the  old  world.  No  punishment  of  a 
master  can  take  place  for  any  alleged  misconduct  or  violation  of  law,  with¬ 
out  a  trial  before  his  peers,  nor  could  they  in  such  case  appoint  another  to 
command. 

The  same  regulations  govern  the  Consuls  of  the  United  States,  and 
should  such  a  thing  occur  to  one  of  them,  such  conduct  could  not  be  at¬ 
tempted,  or  if  so,  sustained  ;  even  the  President  of  the  United  States,  if  on 
the  spot  and  applied  to,  could  not  do  it. 

Mr.  B.  here  related  the  following  annecdote  : — The  Emperor  of  Rus¬ 
sia  when  on  an  aquatic  excursion  took  a  fancy  to  the  ship  United  States, 
then  in  the  roads  of  Cronstadt,  which  had  been  sent  there  by  him  (Mr. 
Barker),  and  offered  the  Captain  fifty  thousand  dollars  for  her,  which  the 
Captain  agreed  to  take  on  condition  that  he  could  get  clear  of  a  freight 
he  had  agreed  to  take  for  Bordeaux.  The  Emperor  sent  his  Minister  to 
negotiate  with  the  merchant,  who  agreed  to  release  the  ship  for  a  bonus  of 
thirty  thousand  rubles,  giving  three  days’  time  for  the  Admiralty  to  examine 
the  ship  and  conclude  the  bargain ;  their  report  was  favorable  ;  the  Minis¬ 
ter  notified  the  merchant,  on  the  fourth  day,  that  he  would  pay  the  thirty 
thousand  rubles,  when  the  merchant  declined,  saying,  that  the  time  allowed 
for  an  answer  had  elapsed.  The  Minister  reported  to  the  Emperor  of 
that,  which  he  considered  a  great  indignity,  expecting  an  Ukase  com¬ 
manding  her  surrender;  in  place  of  which  the  Emperor  said  “ individual 
rights  must  not  he  invaded,  tell  the  Captain  to  complete  his  loading  for 
France,  go  there,  deliver  his  cargo,  and  collect  the  freight  for  the  benefit 
of  his  owners,  and  proceed  to  the  United  States,  or  otherwise  use  the  ship 
as  he  thought  proper,  until  the  navigation  should  the  next  season  be  free 
from  Ice,  when  he  could  return  and  deliver  the  ship  ;  he  would  then  cause 
her  to  be  received  and't.he  aforesaid  price  paid  for  her  ”  all  of  which  was 
done  ;  in  relation  to  which  an  incident  occurred  indicative  of  the  Emper¬ 
or’s  quick  perception,  promptness  of  action,  and  great  regard  to  the  con¬ 
venience  of  individuals  with  whom  his  nation  dealt.  He,  when  on  another 
aquatic  excursion,  perceiving  that  the  Captain  had  not  been  paid,  signed  a 
warrant  on  the  treasury  for  the  price  agreed  upon,  on  board  the  steam 
boat,  and  caused  it  forthwith  to  be  handed  to  him. 

Mr.  B.,  after  a  few  more  remarks,  and  claiming  Captain  York’s  dis¬ 
charge,  and  the  liability  of  the  prosecutor  and  his  confederates  to  be  taken 
up  for  disturbing  the  peace  themselves,  then  submitted  the  case  to  the 
court  for  its  decision.) 


21 


DECISION  OF  THE  COURT. 

There  being  no  just  cause  of  apprehension  of  an  intention  on  the  part 
of  the  accused  to  commit  a  breach  of  the  peace,  proven  in  this  case,  the 
complaint  is  therefore  dismissed,  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  the 
parties. 

(Signed,)  G.'  W.  LEWIS,  Recorder. 

19 111  April,  1845 


CLERK’S  CERTIFICATE. 

I,  John  Eugene  Layet,  Secretary  of  the  Recorder  of  Municipality 
No.  3,  of  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  do  hereby  certify,  that  the  above  and 
foregoing  twenty-five  and  a  half  pages,  do  contain  a  full  and  complete 
transcript  of  all  the  proceedings  had,  as  well  as  of  all  the  testimony  adduced 
on  the  trial  of  the  cause  wherein  the  State  of  Louisiana  is  complainant  and 
W.  B.  York  is  defendant,  instituted  before  said  Recorder,  and  now  on  the 
records  of  said  office. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  signed  my  name  and  affixed  the 
seal  of  said  Court,  at  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  this  21st  day 
(  L  g  }  of  April,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred 

(  $  and  forty-five,  and  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States 

the  69th  year. 

(Signed,)  .  J.  E.  LAYET,  Secretary. 


RECORDER’S  CERTIFICATE. 

I,  George  Washington  Lewis,  Recorder  of  Municipality  No.  3,  of  the 
city  of  New  Orleans,  do  hereby  certify,  that  John  Eugene  Layct  is  Secre¬ 
tary  of  the  Recorder  of  Municipality  Nb.  3,  of  the  city  of  New  Orleans, 
and  that  the  signature  “  J.  E.  Layet,  Secretary,”  to  the  foregoing  certifi¬ 
cate  is  in  the  proper  hand-writing  of  him  the  said  Secretary;  to  his  official 
acts  as  such,  full  faith  and  credit  are  due  and  owing;  and  I  do  further  cer¬ 
tify,  that  his  attestation  to  the  foregoing  certificate  is  in  due  form  of  law. 

Given  under  my  hand,  at  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  this  21st  day  of 
April,  1845. 

(Signed,)  G.  W.  LEWIS,  Recorder. 


Note. — Such  words  and  sentences  as  are  inserted  in  parenthesis  in  the  foregoing  are 
not  in  the  copy  of  the  record  from  which  this  is  taken.  OB. 


22 


It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  proceedings  that  the  attempt  to  cast 
odium  on  the  character  of  Captain  York,  by  imputing  to  him  the  charge  of 
being  suspected  as  contemplating  a  breach  ot  the  peace,  was  a  signal 
failure,  and  that  he  passed  through  that  ordeal  triumphantly;  this,  the  reader 
will  discover,  was  but  the  commencement  of  the  trials  in  store  for  him. 
The  next  step  taken  to  accomplish  the  designs  of  Mr.  Chilton,  to  get  the 
vessel  away  from  his  command,  was  a  suit  in  the  United  States  District 
Court,  libelliug  the  barque  Aldebaran,  setting  forth  that  Captain  York  un¬ 
lawfully  detained  the  vessel  from  her  owner,  represented  by  his  (so  styling 
himself)  accredited  agent — but  here  again,  as  in  the  Recorder’s  Court,  the 
proof  of  such  authority  was  not  produced  by  his  accuser,  and  although  it 
will  be  discovered  that  the  barque  was  finally  carried  off,  in  defiance  of 
law,  and  contempt  of  the  authority  of  the  Court — and  under  the  command 
of  Benjamin  Turner ,  late  Male  of  the  British  ship  Provincialist,  of  Lon¬ 
donderry,  still  Captain  York  was  again  successful,  for  the  rule  was  dis¬ 
missed  by  the  Court,  and  soon  afterwards  his  persecutors  rather  than  go  fur¬ 
ther  into  the  matter,  obtained  an  order  from  Judge  McCaleb,  giving  them 
leave,  on  payment  of  costs,  to  dismiss  the  libel  suit. 

It  is  thought  proper  by  the  compiler,  to  call  particular  attention  to  the 
following  certificates  of  old,  respectable  and  well  known  ship  masters.  To 
dilate  upon  their  contents  would  be  superfluous,  they  speak  for  themselves, 
and  so  speaking  say  volumes  in  favor  of  a  young  commander.  But  to  the 
certificates,  Comment  is  unnecessary. 


CERTIFICATES  OF  SHIP  MASTERS 

AS  TO  THE  APPEARANCE  AND  CONDITION  OF  THE  BARQUE  ALDEBARAN, 
AND  THE  CONDUCT  OF  CAPTAIN  YORK. 

,  New  Orleans,  April  12th,  1845. 

Having  been  called  upon  by  Captain  W.  B.  York,  of  the"  Barque  “  Aldebaran,”  of  Liver 
pool,  to  survey  her  and  give  my  opinion  as  to  her  state,  I,  in  conjunction  with  other  Masters 
consider  her  to  be  in  a  state  highly  creditable  to  the  aforesaid  W.  B.  York;  and  having  been 
in  his  company  frequently  since  his  arrival  in  the  port  of  New  Orleans,  I  believe  him  to  be 
a  sober,  persevering,  and  competent  ship  master. 

(Signed,)  JOHN  BROWN, 

Master  of  the  ship  Gertrude  of  Liverpool. 


We,  the  undersigned,  British  ship  masters  at  present  in  this  port,  do  hereby  certify,  and 
will  hereafter  in  any  other  port  corroborate  the  contents  of  the  preceding  certificate  of  Cap- 


lain  John  Brown,  Master  of  the  British  ship  Gertrude,  as  regards  the  character,  conduct, 
and  competency  of  Captain  W.  B.  York. 

New  Orleans,  the  14th  April,  1845. 

(Signed,)  R.  Sedgwick,  ship  Coromondelof  Liverpool. 

George  Brock,  ship  Glentanner  of  Aberdeen. 

William  Baciie,  ship  Yorkshire  of  Bristol. 

Thomas  Fisiier,  ship  William  Abrams  of  Greenock. 

Peter  Clark,  barque  Agneda  ofGreenock. 

James  Adams,  ship  Canada  of  St.  Johns. 

Peter  Barclay,  ship  Elizabeth  of  Belfast. 

Simon  Graham,  barque  Grampion  of  Liverpool. 

John  Stencer,  barque  Pursuit  of  Liverpool. 

Richard  E.  Jones,  barque  Ellen  Bryson  of  Glasgow. 

John  Flood,  barque  Susan  of  Liverpool. 

James  Brown,  ship  Gossypium  of  Liverpool. 

A.  McPherson,  barque  Eleanor  of  Glasgow’. 

James  Rodger,  ship  Araminta  of  Belfast. 

Alexander  IIossack,  barque  New  York  of  Greenock. 

Thomas  Frazer,  barque  Pollock  of  Glasgow. 

David  White,  barque  Broom  of  Glasgow. 

Thomas  Brocklebank,  ship  Columbine  of  Liverpool. 

George  Welch,  barque  Lord  Sandon  of  Liverpool. 

Henry  A-  Varian,  (mate)  of  the  ship  Bradshaw  do. 

D.  Williams,  ship  Provincialist  of  Londonderry. 

J.  Davidson,  ship  Intrinsic  of  Belfast. 

A.  Clarice,  ship  Amoy  of  Belfast. 

This  is  to  certify  that  on  this  day,  in  our  presence,  on  board  the  British  barque  Alde- 
baran,  Captain  W.  B.  York  directed  Edward  Mason  the  second  mate  of  said  barque  to 
bring  the  light  sails  on  deck  and  air  them,  to  cover  the  stern  boat  with  a  sail,  and  make  up 
the  quarter  deck  awning,  whereupon  he  refused  to  do  so,  and  said  he  dare  not  obey  the  or¬ 
ders  of  Captain  York,  and  was  very  abusive.  Captain  York  attempted  to  go  into  the  cabin 
when  a  person  by  the  name  of  .1  ames  Scott  interposed  to  prevent  the  same,  and  threatened 
to  put  Captain  York  and  the  subscribers  out  of  the  said  vessel  if  Captain  York  persisted  in 
directing  the  conduct  of  the  business  of  the  ship,  and  the  said  Edward  Mason  appeared  to 
be  the  instigator  of  the  disorderly  conduct  we  witnessed  on  board  of  said  vessel. 

New  Orleans,  14th  April,  1845. 

(Signed,)  THOMAS  FISHER, 

Master  of  the  ship  William  Abrams. 

(Signed,)  RICHARD  E.  JONES, 

Master  of  barque  Ellen  Bryson. 

(Signed,)  GEORGE  BROCK, 

Master  of  ship  Glentanner. 

The  attention  of  the  reader  is  now  directed  to  the  proceedings  which 
took  place  in  reference  to  the  libel  case. 


FOli  THE 


DISTRICT  OF  LOUISIANA. 


I’homas  Hunter  Holderness 
vs. 

British  barque  Aldebaran 
and 

William  Broader  York. 


J 


United  States 
District  Court. 


PROCEEDINGS  IN  OPEN  COURT. 


Thursday-,  24th  April. 


Present: — His  Honor  Theodore  H.  M’Caleb,  Judge. 

COPY  OF  LIBEL. 

To  the  Hon.  Theodore  H.  M’Caleb,  Judge  of  the  United  States 
District  Court,  for  the  District  of  Louisiana: 

The  libel  and  complaint  of  Thomas  Hunter  Holderness,  of  Liverpool, 
England,  merchant,  against  the  British  barque  Aldebaran,  whereof  Wil¬ 
liam  Broader  York  late  was,  and  now  pretends  to  be,  master,  her  tackle, 
apparel  and  furniture,  and  against  the  said  York,  of  Hull,  England,  lint 
now,  together  with  the  said  barque,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  honorable 
Court;  and  also,  against  all  other  persons  lawfully  intervening  for  their  in¬ 
terest  in  the  said  barque,  in  a  cause  of  possession,  civil  and  maritime. 

And,  thereupon,  the  said  Holderness  alleges,  and  articulately  propounds, 
as  follows: 

First. — That  the  libellant  is  the  sole  and  registered  owner  of  the  said 
barque,  Aldebaran,  a  vessel  of  about  six  hundred  and  nine  tons,  British 
measure,  now  lying  in  the  port  of  New  Orleans,  and  for  some  time  past 
has  had  the  possession  and  ownership  thereof,  and  ought  now  to  have 
possession  and  control  of  the  same. 

Second. — That  the  possession  of  the  said  barque  is  now  wrongfully 
with-held,  from  the  agent  of  the  libellant,  here  present  and  representing 
the  owner,  to-wit :  Richard  H.  Chilton,  by  the  said  William  B.  York,  alle¬ 
ging  himself  to  be  entitled  to  the  possession  thereof,  as  captain,  although 
the  said  York  has  been  long  since  deprived  of  his  command,  . and  super¬ 
seded  for  gross,  violent,  improper  and  illegal  conduct,  by  the  action  of  said 
Agent  and  William  Mure,  Esq.,  British  Consul  at  the  [tort  of  New  Orleans, 
acting  in  his  official  capacity. 


25 


Third. — That  the  said  Richard  H.  Chilton  is  the  title  and  lawful  agent 
of  the  owner,  and  as  such,  duly  authorised  and  empowered  to  act  in  the 
premises. 

Fourth. — That  Messrs.  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.,  merchants  of  this  city, 
are  now  loading  the  said  barque,  and  have  notified  the  agent  of  libellant 
that  they  will  protest  against  her  as  unseaworthy  in  case  the  said  York 
should  proceed  in  her  to  sea,  as  captain  or  commander. 

Fifth. — That  the  action  and  jurisdiction  of  this  Court  are  invoked 
herein,  at  the  instance  and  request  of  the  said  William  Mure,  representing 
the  British  Government  at  the  said  port  of  New  Orleans. 

Sixth. — That  all  and  singular  the  premises  are  true  and  within  the 
Admiralty  and  Maritime  jurisdiction  of  this  honorable  Court,  in  verification 
whereof,  if  denied,  the  libellant  craves  leave  to  refer  to  the  depositions 
and  other  proofs  to  be  by  him  exhibited  in  this  cause. 

Wherefore,  the  libellant  prays  that  process,  in  due  form  of  law,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  course  of  Courts  of  Admiralty  and  Maritime  jurisdiction,  may 
issue  against  the  said  barque  Aldebaran,  her  tackle,  apparel  and  furniture, 
now  lying  in  the  port  of  New  Orleans,  as  aforesaid;  and  that  the  said 
William  Broader  York,  and  all  other  persons  having,  or  pretending  to 
have  any  right,  title  or  interest  in  the  said  barque,  may  be  cited  to  appear 
before  this  honorable  Court,  and  to  show  cause  why  possession  of  the  said 
barque  Aldebaran  should  not  be  delivered  to  the  libellant,  or  his  agent, 
the  said  Richard  H.  Chilton,  as  entitled  to  the  sole  possession  thereof,  against 
the  said  William  Broader  York,  and  all  others  lawfully  intervening;  and 
that  this  honorable  Court  would  be  pleased  to  decree  the  possession  of  the 
said  barque  to  the  libellant,  or  to  his  said  agent  Richard  H.  Chilton,  and 
to  administer  such  other  relief  in  the  premises  as  shall  to  law  and  justice 
appertain  ;  and  also,  to  condemn  the  said  York,  and  all  persons  interven¬ 
ing  for  their  interest  in  the  said  barque,  in  costs. 

(Signed.)  R.  H.  CHILTON,  Agent. 

WINTHROP, 

Proftdr  for  Libellant. 

Personally  appeared,  Richard  II.  Chilton,  Agent  for  the  libellant,  whf) 
being  sworn,  saith  that  the  facts  stated  in  the  foregoing  libel  are  true. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed,  this  22d  day  of  April,  1845. 

(Signed.)  N.  II.  JENNINGS,  Cleric. 


COPY  OF  CITATION  TO  CAPTAIN  YORK. 

✓ 

United  States  Distict  Court — Sitting  in  and  for  the  District  of 

Louisiana. 

To  William  B.  York ,  Master  of  the  British  Barque  Aldebaran ,  now  at 
New  Orleans: 

You  arc  hereby  summoned  lo  comply  with  the  prayer  of  the  annexed  petition,  or  file  yon- 
answer  thereto  in  writing,  in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United 

4 


States,  fortlio  Eastern  District  of  Louisiana,  in  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  witliin  ten  days 
from  service  hereof,  or  judgment  will  be  given  against  you  by  default, 
t  1  Witness,  the  Honorable  Theodore  II.  McCaleb,  Judge  of  said  Court,  at 

<  L.  S.  >  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  this  22d  day  of  April,  1845,  and  69th  year  of  the 
t  )  Independence  of  the  United  States. 

(Signed,)  N.  R.  JENNINGS,  Clerk. 


COPY  OF  SEIZURE. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  the  Marshal  of  the  Dis¬ 
trict  of  Louisiana,  or  to  his  lawful  Deputy — Greeting  : 

You  are  hereby  commanded  forthwith  to  seize,  and  into  your  possession  take,  the  British 
Barque  Aldebaran,  her  tackle,  apparel  and  furniture,  now  libelled  by  Thomas  Hunter 
Holder  ness,  in  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  District  of  Louisiana,  that 
you  do  cite  and  admonish  the  owner  or  owners,  and  all  and  every  other  person  or  persons, 
having  or  pretending  to  have,  any  right,  title,  in  or  to  the  same,  to  be  and  appear  before  a 
District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the  District  aforesaid,  to  be  holden  at  the  city  of 
New  Orleans,  on  or  before  the  third  Monday  from  the  service  hereof,  to  show  cause,  if  any 
they  have,  or  can,  why  the  said  British  Barque  Aldebaran,  her  tackle,  apparel  and  furni¬ 
ture  should  not  be  delivered  to  libellant,  agreeably  to  the  prayer  of  the  libellant;  and  how 
you  shall  have  executed  this  warrant,  that  you  make  return  according  to  law. 

1  Witness,  the  Honorable  Theodore  IL.  McCaleb,  Judge  of  the  said  Court, 
L.  S.  1  this  twenty-second  day  of  April,  1845,  and  the  69th  year  of  the  Independence 
)  of  the  United  States. 

(Signed,)  N.  R.  JENNINGS,  Clerk. 


COPY  OFilULE. 

Themas  Hunter  Holderness, 
vs. 

British  Barque  Aldebaran  and  Wm.  Broader  York. 

On  motion  of  John  Winthrop,  Esq.,  Proctor  for  libellant,  it  is  ordered  that  William 
Broader  York  show  cause,  on  Thursday,  the  24th  April,  1845,  at  10  o’clock  A.  M.,if  any  he 
have,  or  can,  why  the  barque  Aldebaran,  libelled  herein,  her  tackle,  apparel  and  furni¬ 
ture,  should  not  be  given  up  to  said  libellant,  or  his  agent,  Richard  H.  Chilton,  upon  giving 
bond,  with  good  and  sufficient  security,  in  such  sum  as  the  Court  may  direct. 


U.  S.  District 
Court. 


The  rule  founded  on  the  petition  and  oath  of  Richard  Harrison  Chilton, 
came  on  this  day  for  trial.  John  Winthrop,  Esq.  appeared  as  Proctor  for 
the  libellant,  ahd  Messrs.  Barker  and  Lacy,  Proctors  for  the  respondent, 
William  B.  York,  Master  of  the  said  barque  Aldebaran. 

Botli  Mr.  Chilton  and  Captain  York  appeared  in  court. 


27 


Mr.  Barker  opened  the  case,  by  offering  to  file  an  answer  to  the  rule;  its 
ponderous  appearance  induced  Mr.  Winthrop  to  object. 

Mr.  WiNTHRor  here  interrupted  the  Proctor  for  the  respondent  by  cal¬ 
ling  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  the  answer  proposed  to  be  filed  by  the  gen¬ 
tleman,  stating  that  he  had  looked  over  the  sheets  which  composed  it,  and 
could  find  little  that  was  relevant  to  the  present  issue,  he  thefore  objected 
to  its  being  received  as  an  answer  to  the  rule,  saying  that  it  appeared  more 
like  an  answer  to  the  libel  than  to  the  rule;  that  he  (Mr.  W.)  had  ten  days 
to  except  to  the  answer  to  the  libel;  that  he  intended  to  except,  and  to  have 
all  such  parts  as  were  not  in  response  to  the  libel  stricken  out — that  he  did 
not  come  there  to  speak  to  Bunkum — he  had  no  private  reporter  in 
Court — nor  had  he  a  correspondent  in  New  York  to  herald  his  fame — or 
report  his  proceedings  to  Lord  Aberdeen,  nor  did  he  intend  to  go  now  into 
the  merits  of  the  case,  and  thought  that  His  Honor,  as  well  as  himself,  might 
not  survive  this  suit,  that  there  appeared  to  be  no  prospect  ofa  termination  of 
it,  if  such  strange  practice  in  admiralty  was  tolerated — that  this  was  a  sim¬ 
ple  rule  to  show  cause  why  the  owner  should  not  take  possession  of  his 
property,  by  giving  bonds  to  abide  the  issue  of  the  suit.  The  mass  of  mat¬ 
ter  produced  by  the  gentleman  as  an  answer  to  it,  said  Mr.  W.,  has  as 
much  to  do  with  this  case,  as  the  clock  in  this  Court,  which  marks  the 
time  used  in  discussing  it.  Mr.  W.  contended  that  no  claim  had  been 
filed  for  the  property,  and  that  it  was  a  settled  rule  in  Admiralty  proceed¬ 
ings,  that  no  counsel  could  be  heard  in  opposition  to  the  petition  until  a 
claim  had  been  filed. 

Mr.  Barker  did  not  question  the  Proctor’s  familiarity  with  Admiralty 
practice — did  not  profess  to  know  any  thing  about  it  himself,  except  that 
lie  knew  that  common  sense  and  common  justice  must  be  the  governing 
rule.  His  client  certainly  intended  to  transmit  to  Lord  Aberdeen,  or 
some  other  branch  of  his  government,  an  account  from  the  records  of  the 
Courts,  of  the  wrong  done  him. 

Mr.  Barker  then  begged  the  gentleman  on  the  other  side  to  be  patient 
until  the  answer  should  be  read,  when  he  would  find  that  it  contained  a 
claim  for  the  property.  Mr.  B.  said  he  did  not  come  here  to  argue  the 
cause,  but  to  see  that  the  testimony  and  facts  of  the  case  were  placed  fully 
before  the  Court,  after  which  the  learned  Proctor  associated  with  him, 
(Judge  Lacy,)  would  make  whatever  argument  should  bo  deemed  neces¬ 
sary;  that  his  client  had  been  served  with  notice  of  the  libel,  of  the  rule, 
and  the  copy  of  the  petition  of  Richard  Harrison  Chilton,  all  at  the  same 
time,  and  did  not  well  perceive  how  they  could  be  separated;  but,  be  that 
as  it  may,  he  should  file  the  papers  as  the  answer  of  Captain  York  to  the 
rule,  and  when  read,  the  court  would  not  consider  such  parts,  if  any  there 
should  be,  which  did  not  apply  to  the  case. 

The  Court  here  expressed  its  impatience  to  hear  the  document  read,  say¬ 
ing  that  it  could  not  perceive  the  force  of  the  objection  until  it  knew  the 
contents  of  the  paper,  when  nothing  would  be  considered  which  was  not 
in  response  to,  or  called  for  by  the  petition. 

Mr.  Barker  then  filed  the  answer  and  went  on  to  read  it.  When  Mr. 
B.  had  got  to  that  part,  and  was  about  to  read  the  card  of  Mr.  Chilton,  pub 


28 


fished  in  the  Bulletin  newspaper,  the  Proctor  for  libellant  objected — and 
the  Court  inquired  what  that  had  to  do  with  the  case.  Mr.  Barker  replied, 
that  they  pul  themselves  on  their  right  to  refuse  to  recognize  an  agent, 
until  such  agent  exhibited  his  authority;  this  advertisement  admitted  that  a 
sight  of  the  authority  had  been  demanded  on  the  part  of  Captain  York,  and 
refused  by  Mr.  Chilton,  and  therefore  applicable  to  the  case.  On  which 
the  Court  allowed  the  reading  to  go  on.  That  part  which  spoke  of  Mr. 
Chilton’s  readiness  to  produce  his  authority  when  properly  called  upon  by 
a  competent  tribunal  being  read,  the  Proctor  for  Captain  York  remarked, 
that  its  further  reading  was  unnecessary,  as  it  was  not  material  to  the 
issue,  the  Proctor  for  libellant  said  -‘go  on,  let  us  have  the  whole  of  it,’W- 
the  reading  was  continued,  with  a  declaration  by  Mr.  B.  that  the  other  part 
of  the  statement  was  erroneous. 

The  answer  is  in  the  words  and  figures  following  : 

ANSWER. 

Thomas  Hunter  Holderness, 

vs. 

British  Barque  Aldebaran. 

To  ihe  Hon.  Theodore  H.  McCaleb,  Judge  of  the  District  Court  of  the 
United  States  for  the  District  of  Louisiana: 

The  answer,  or  response,  of  William  Broader  York,  respectfully  repre¬ 
sents  to  this  honorable  Court,  and  admits  that  he  is  Master  of  the  British 
barque  “  Aldebaran,”  of  Liverpool;  that  he  is  of  Hull,  in  England;  that  he, 
together  with  the  said  barque,  her  tackle,  apparel  and  furniture,  are  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  this  honorable  Court;  that  ho  is  in  possession  of  the  same, 
subject  to  the  authority  of  this  Gourt;  that  before  his  appointment  the  said 
vessel  may  have  been  in  the  possession  and  ownership  of  the  libellant,  but 
does  not  know  particularly. 

If  Thomas  Hunter  Holderness,  of  Liverpool,  is,  as  this  respondent  be¬ 
lieves,  the  sole  and  only  owner;  he  knows  not  on  what  terms  Thomas 
Holderness,  of  Hull,  received  her  from  such  owner. 

He  found  her  in  possession  of  Thomas  Holderness,  of  Hull;  received 
her  from  him,  then  or  soon  after,  subject  to  a  charter  to  be  carried  into 
effect  through  the  agency  of  Messrs.  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.,  of  this  city, 
to  all  whom  this  respondent  probably  has  to  account  for  his  possession  and 
stewardship ,  and  he  denies  that  any  or  either  of  them  are  otherwise  in 
possession,  and  refuses  to  surrender  his  possession  and  command,  until  the 
vessel  returns  to  Hull. 

When  a  claim  on  him  was  first  made,  he  was  willing  to  do  so,  to  any 
person  duly  authorised  to  represent  the  owner,  waiving  his  legal  rights ; 
and  for  which  purpose  he  demanded  to  sec  the  credentials  of  the  person 
pretending  to  be  authorised ;  this  being  denied  him,  and  a  most  relentless 
war  commenced,  and  which  continues  to  be  carried  on,  by  Richard  Harri¬ 
son  Chilton,  the  pretended  agent,  this  respondent  now  puts  himself  on  his 


■  U.  S.  District  Court. 


20 


legal  rights,  and  insists  that  so  long  as  he  continues  to  prosecute  the  voy¬ 
age  agreeably  with  his  instructions,  there  is  no  power  competent  to  remove 
him  from  his  command  until  the  voyage  has  terminated. 

That  as  to  R.  II.  Chilton’s  authority  to  represent  the  owner  of  the  British 
barque  Aldebaran,  he  knows  nothing  beyond  this,  that  the  following  sen¬ 
tence  is  to  be  found  in  his  sailing  orders  : 

“  We  understand  that  ‘old  flaiboats ’  are  to  be  purchased  in  New  Or¬ 
leans  at  a  very  low  rate,  and  you  must  consult  with  Mr.  Chilton  as  to 
the  best  method  of  procuring  one  at  as  little  cost  as  possible,  and  with  as 
little  labor  in  breaking  up,  for  the  purpose  of  dunnaging  the  ship’s  sides, 
<Sfc.,  <fc.” 

This  respondent  further  answering  says,  when  Mr.  Chilton  claimed  to 
have  the  authority  further  to  act,  this  respondent,  by  his  counsel,  respect¬ 
fully  asked  through  H.  B.  M.  Consul,  (as  will  more  fully  appear  by  the  cor¬ 
respondence  hereunto  annexed)  a  sight  of  his  authority,  in  place  of  produ¬ 
cing  which,  this  respondent  was  thrown  into  prison,  at  the  instance  of  the 
said  Chilton,  who  endeavored  to  excite  rebellion  among  the  crew  ;  and  in 
the  discussion  of  the  cause  of  his  confinement  before  a  court  of  ms  (Chil¬ 
ton’s)  own  selection,  the  said  Chilton  was  required  to  produce  his 
authority;  to  enable  him  to  do  so  the  Court  was  twice  adjourned,  and  in 
place  of  his  exhibiting,  either  to  the  Court  or  this  respondent,  his  authority, 
a  card  appears  in  the  Commercial  Bulletin  newspaper,  of  Saturday,  the 
1 9th  instant,  in  the  words  and  figures  following  : 

BARK  ALDEBARAN. 

TO  THE  EDITOR  OF  THE  BULLETIN. 


My  attention  has  been  directed  to  several  paragraphs  in  the  morning  papers  in  relation 
to  this  vessel,  and  an  investigation  now  going  on  before  Recorder  Lewis,  Iconsequent 
upon  an  affidavit  made  before  him. 

I  have  only  to  state  that  these  articles  contain  a  one-sided  statement  of  the  affair 
dressed  up  for  the  public  eye,  as  I  am  led  to  suppose,  by  the  counsel  who  appeared  for 
Captain  York. 

It  is  wholly  untrue  that  the  Consul  cited  any  authorities  to  show  the  capacity  in  which 
he  acted,  or  the  power  with  which  he  was  clothed.  Indeed,  his  counsel,  Mr.  Winthrop, 
expressly  advised  him  not  to  do  so.  Mr.  Mure  simply  statcxl  that  he  acted  according  to 
the  instructions  of  his  Government,  and  incompliance  with  the  acts  of  Parliament;  and 
that  his  only  object  in  saying  a  word,  was  for  the  information  of  a  crowd  of  British  cap' 
tains,  attracted  there  no  doubt  by  the  counsel  for  the  Captain,  and  the  flourish  of  trumpets 
with  which  the  intended  investigation  was  announced. 

I  state  this  much  injustice  to  the  British  Consul,  and  have  only  to  add  for  myself,  that 
1  am  ready  to  show  my  authority  as  Agent,  when  properly  called  upon,  before  a  com¬ 
petent  tribunal.  R-  H.  CHILTON. 

Richard  H.  Chilton  being  in  court  when  the  Consul’s  letter  was  given 
in  evidence,  giving  authorities,  it  is  strange  that  he  should  within  two  days 
thereafter  have  hazarded  such  a  declaration,  viz : 

“It  is  wholly  untrue  that  the  Consul  cited  authorities  to  show  the  capa¬ 
city  in  which  he  acted,  or  the  power  with  which  he  was  clothed .” 

Here  is  seen  the  same  pertinacious  refusal  to  produce  the  authority,  in¬ 
timating  that  the  court  to  which  he  himseif  appealed  had  no  right  to  require 


30 


its  production,  and  that  this  respondent  had  no  right  to  see  it  before  he 
delivered  over  the  ship  and  cargo,  of  the  probable  value  of  seventy-five 
thousand  dollars,  belonging  to  third  parties,  of  which  he  was  in  lawful  pos¬ 
session. 

As  to  who  is  the  registered  owner,  this  respondent  begs  leave  to  refer  to 
the  register  itself,  nowin  the  possession  of  the  British  Consul — he, however, 
admits  that  the  register  is  not  any  legal  evidence  between  individuals 
claiming  in  favor  of  the  possessor  ;  the  whole  object  of  the  register  being 
to  establish  the  national  character  of  the  vessel,  and  to  prevent  frauds  on 
the  navigation  acts  of  England,  with  which  the  United  States  Courts  have 
nothing  to  do. 

Until  this  respondent  heard  Mr.  Chilton  swear  before^the  Recorder  of  the 
Third  Municipality  as  a  witness  in  the  aforesaid  investigation,  that  he 
(Chilton)  “believed  that  there  were  other  owners  than  the  one  mentioned 
in  the  register,”  he  had  no  information  on  the  subject,  except  what  is 
herein  stated.  This  respondent  thinks  that  the  said  Richard  H.FChilton 
must  be  mistaken  in  this,  as  he  cannot  believe  that  the  registered  owner 
would  swear  falsely,  or  expose  the  ship  to  confiscation,  which  he  is 
informed  and  believes  would  be  the  case  if  all  the  names  of  the  owners 
were  not  inserted  in  the  Register. 

This  evidence  just  alluded  to,  was  taken  down  in  part  by  the  clerk  of 
the  Court,  and  stricken  out  by  order  of  the  Recorder,  on  motion  of  this 
respondent’s  counsel,  because  a  witnesses  belief  was  not  legal  evidence. 

This  respondent  received  the  barque  Alderbaran  and  appurtenences 
from  Mr.  Thomas  Holderness,  of  Hull ;  was  by  him  appointed  to  her 
command  ;  the  said  Holderness  signed  the  contract  with  this  respondent, 
individually,  and  delivered  to  him  his  orders  for  the  voyage,  signed  by 
Holderness  &.  Chilton  ;  of  which  firm  this  respondent  supposed  the  said 
Holderness  the  principal,  and  of  which  orders  a  copy  is  hereunto 
appended.  (For  the  letter  of  instructions  to  Captain  York,  see  page  9). 

This  respondent  has  always  understood  that  Thomas  Hunter  Holderness 
of  Liverpool,  was  the  son  of  Thomas  Holderness  of  Hull,  but  what 
connection  they  have  in  business,  or  what  interest,  if  any,  the  son 
has  in  this  vessel,  this  respondent  has  no  knowledge  or  information  beyond 
what  appears  on  the  Register,  and  what  he  heard  the  said  Chilton  testify 
to  ;  he  therefore  requires  the  libellant  to  make  out  his  declarations  by  legal 
proof.  • 

This  respondent  further  answering,  denies  that  the  said  barque  is  now 
wrongfully  with-held  from  the  agent  of  the  libellant,  but  insists  that  she  is 
in  possession  of  respondent,  the  duly  authorised  agent  of  the  owner. 

This  respondent  denies  that  the  said  Richard  II.  Chilton  is  the  agent 
Tor  the  said  owner ;  and  he  denies  that  he  has  been  superseded  “for  gross, 
violent,  improper  and  illegal  conduct,”  or  for  any  other  cause,  or  that  he 
could  be  superseded  by  the  action  of  the  said  Chilton,  or  the  said  William 
Mure,  Esq.,  Her  Britannic  Majesty’s  Consul  at  the  port  of  New  Orleans. 
So  far  from  this,  the  said  Consul  on  the  very  day  before  the  filing  of  the 
said  libel,  recognised  this  respondent  as  master  of  the  said  Aldebaran,  and 
authorised  him  to  discharge  the  chief  mate,  recommending  this  respondent 


31 


to  submit  the  whole  matter  to  his  owner  on  his  return  home,  as  will  more 
fully  appear  by  his  two  letters,  which,  together  with  the  letter  of  this  re¬ 
spondent,  refered  to  therein,  were  in  words  and  figures  following  : 

New  Orleans,  18th  April,  1845. 

William  Mure,  Esq., 

H.  B.  Majesty’s  Consul: 

Dear  Sir — You  having  satisfied  me  that  I  was  in  error  in  supposing  I  could  discharge 
the  mate  of  the  barque  Aldebaran,  under  my  command,  without  the  consent  of  H.  B. 
Majesty’s  Consul,  I  have  agqin  to  request  your  consent  to  my  discharging  Mr-  Scott, 
chief  mate  of  said  vessel,  for  reasons  heretofore  assigned  to  you,  and  because  I  do  not 
think  that  harmony  could  prevail  on  the  homeward  voyage,  if  he  should  be  continued. 

The  error  of  opinion  under  which  I  was  laboring  on  the  subject,  led  me,  when  you 
refused  your  consent,  to  the  use  of  intemperate  expressions  to  you,  near  the  post  office, 
which  expressions  I  withdraw,  and  regret  having  made  use  of  them. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed  )  WM.  B.  YORK, 

Master  of  barque  Aldebaran. 


British  Consulate,  New  Orleans,  April  21st,  1845. 

Captain  W.  B.  York: 

Sir — I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  18th  inst.,  in  which  you  have  expressed  regret 
for  certain  intemperate  expressions  made  use  of  towards  me,  in  reference  to  my  refusal  to 
consent  to  the  discharge  of  the  mate  of  the  Aldebaran;  I  have  merely  to  say  that  I  accept 
the  apology  tendered,  which,  however,  was  unnecessary,  as  I  do  not  permit  my  private 
feelings  to  influence  my  public  duties. 

In  regard  to  my  consent  to  your  now  discharging  the  mate,  I  can  only  agree  to  your 
doing  so,  upon  the  understanding  that  this  is  not  to  compromise  or  prejudice  any  pro¬ 
ceedings  which  may  be  taken  by  him  or  others  in  the  Courts  of  Law  in  England. 

I  am,  sir, 

Yours,  &c., 

(Signed.)  WM.  MURE, 

H.  B.  M.  Consul. 


British  Consulate,  New  Orleans,  April  21st,  1845, 
Sir — In  handing  you  the  enclosed  letter  I  have  merely  to  state  that  I  act  in  this  matter 
passively,  having  no  desire  that  the  interests  of  the  ownersof  the  barque,  or  the  charter¬ 
ers  should  suffer  by  delay  in  offering  opposition  to  a  jurisdiction  over  my  Consular  du¬ 
ties  by  tribunals  whose  power  in  the  matter,  I  cannot  acknowledge. 

The  best  course  for  you  to  pursue  is,  to  lay  the  whole  matter  before  the  owners  on 
your  arrival  in  England. 

I  am,  sir, 

Your,  <Scc., 

(Signed.)  WM.  MURE. 

H.  B.  M.  Consul. 


-Whether  “the  action  and  jurisdiction  of  this  Court  are  invoked  herein  at 
the  instance  and  request  of  the  said  William  Mure ,  representing  the  British 
Government  at  the  said  Port  of  New  Orleans, ”  or  not,  this  respondent  does 
not  know.  The  understanding  between  this  respondent  and  the  said  Con¬ 
sul,  when  the  aforesaid  letters  were  agreed  upon  and  delivered,  was  that 
he,  the  said  Consul,  should  not  oppose  any  farther  objection  to  this  respon- 


32 


dent’s  remaining’  in  the  command  and  returning  to  Hull  in  the  barque  Aldo- 
karan,  and  that  all  further  legal  proceedings  should  be  confined,  so  far  as 
he  or  the  British  Government  were  concerned,  to  the  Courts  of  England; 
leaving  to  Richard  Harrison  Chilton  to  pursue  whatever  course  he  thought 
proper.  On  the  evening  of  the  21st  April,  the  British  Consul  sent  word  to 
this  respondent’s  counsel,  that  Richard  H.  Chilton  intended  to  proceed  fur¬ 
ther  in  the  matter,  which  he,  the  said  British  Consul  said  he  should  en¬ 
deavor  to  dissuade  him  from;  and  that,  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  he  would 
not  have  any  thing  more  to  do  in  the  matter;  this  he  repeated  to  the  coun¬ 
sel  of  your  respondent  on  the-22d  instant,  about  half  past  ten  o’clock,  P. 
M.,  superadding  that  he  ha,d  washed  his  hands  clear  of  the  matter  with  ap¬ 
parent  satisfaction,  as  this  respondent  has  been  informed,  and  believes. 

This  respondent  further  admits,  that  Messrs.  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co., 
merchants  of  this  city,  are  now  loading  the  said  barque;  whether  or  not 
they  have  said  to  the  said  Chilton,  “  that  they  will  ■protest  against  her  (the 
barque)  as  unseaworthy  in  case  the  said  Yorlt  should  proceed  in  her  to  sea, 
as  Captain  or  Commander, ”  this  respondent  has  no  knowledge.  Mr. 
Gordon,  the  principal  of  said  firm,  having  always  declared  himself  satisfied 
with  this  respondent,  and  on  the  18th  instant,  gave  a  letter  to  be  used  in 
Court,  resisting  the  complaint  of  the  said  Chilton,  in  words  and  figures 
following : 

Mr.  Barker  : 

Dear  Sir — At  your  request  I  have  to  state  that  Captain  York  called  at  the  office  of  Gor¬ 
don,  Wylie  &  Co.  and  reported  the  arrival  here  of  the  ship  Aldebaran  on  the  9th  or  10th 
March,  and  we  have  no  complaint  to  make  of  his  conduct  since. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed,)  A.  GORDON. 

Subsequently  understanding  that  Richard  H.  Chilton  had  been  endeavor¬ 
ing  to  exert  an  influence  over  the  said  Mr.  Gordon,  and  that  in  conse¬ 
quence  Mr.  Mure,  the  Consul,  wished  to  see  Mr.  Gordon  before  he  gave 
the  promised  letter  to  Captain  York,  this  respondent  proposed  to  accompa¬ 
ny  the  Consul  to  Mr.  Gordon,  in  order  to  ascertain  what  new  difficulty  had 
sprung  up,  when  said  British  Consul  refused  to  accompany  this  respondent 
to  the  office  of  Mr.  Gordon;  whereupon  this  respondent  waited  on  Mr.  Gor¬ 
don,  from  whom  he  received  a  letter,  in  words  and  figures  following,  as 
near  as  he  can  relate  them,  having  been  unable  to  procure  the  original  or 
a  copy  thereof : 

New  Orleans,  21st  April,  1845. 

Wm.  Mure,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir— Captain  York,  of  the  British  Barque  Aldebaran,  has  promised  not  to  ship  any 
mate  who  shall  not  be  approved  by  us,  which  is  all  we  can  reasonably  ask. 

Dear  sir. 

Yours  truly, 

(Signed,)  GORDON,  WYLIE  &  Co. 

[Note — This  letter  may  be  signed  A.  Gordon,  instead  of  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.] 

Hence,  this  respondent  cannot  believe  that  the  said  Chilton  has  comprehend¬ 
ed  the  true  meaning  of  I  he  notification  he  alleges  to  have  received  from  the 
said  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.,  and  prays  that  the  said  Chilton  be  required  to 


33 


produce  such  notification  on  the  trial  of  this  cause,  or  otherwise  to  establish 
this,  and  all  other  of  his  allegations,  by  strict  and  legal  proof.  As  to  the 
libellants’  giving  bail,  this  respondent  being  in  possession,  bail  would  be  no 
satisfaction  to  him — the  underwriters  and  all  others  concerned  may  hold 
him  answerable,  whether  such  bail  proved  good  or  otherwise — many  of 
whom  are  not  represented  here  in  that  matter,  and  it  is  respectfully  con¬ 
tended  that  however  much  power,  the  Court  may  have  to  hold  the  property 
until  final  judgment,  that  it  is  not  competent  to  take  the  property  from  the 
person  in  lawful  possession,  and  surrender  it  to  others  on  bonds. 

Whereupon  this  respondent  prays  that  the  officers  of  this  Court  be  re¬ 
quired  to  return  the  said  barque,  her  tackle,  apparel  and  furniture,  to  this 
respondent,  and  for  general  relief,  in  and  about  the  premises. 

And  as  in  duty-bound,  this  respondent  will  ever  pray. 

(Signed,)  WILLIAM  BROADER  YORK. 

Jacob  Barker,  Proctor. 

William  Broader  York,  being  duty  sworn,  saith  that  the  facts,  so  far  as  they  come 
within  his  own  knowledge,  stated  above,  are  true,  and  so  far  as  ho  derived  them  from 
others  he  believes  them  to  be  true. 

(Signed,)  WILLIAM  BROADER  YORK. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  24th  April,  1845. 

N.  R.  JENNINGS,  Clerk. 

[Note — The  Appendix  to  this  answer  contains  the  letter  of  instructions  from  Messrs. 
Holderness  &  Chilton  to  Captain  York,  as  found  on  page  9;  also,  the  letter  of  Mr.  Barker  to 
the  British  Consul,  marked  document  D,as  found  on  page  13;  the  letter  of  the  British  Con¬ 
sul  marked  document  F,  as  found  on  page  14;  and  Mr.  Barker’s  letter  to  the  British  Consul 
in  reply,  marked  document  E,  as  found  on  page  14.  Reference  to  all  which  is  respectfully 
directed.] 

Mr.  Barker  now  called  upon  the  libellant  to  sustain  the  allegations  of 
his  petition. 

Mr.  Winthrof  repeated  that  he  did  not  come  there  to  try  the  case,  and 
objected  to  many  parts  of  the  answer  of  respondent,  as  being  foreign  to  the 
point  at  issue.  He  insisted  that  for  the  purposes  of  the  rule  before  the 
Court,  the  Court  was  bound  to  consider  all  the  allegations  in  the  petition 
as  true;  and  that  as  a  matter  of  right  the  prayer  of  the  petition  in  the  libel 
should  be  granted. 

Mr.  Barker  replied,  denying  the  position  assumed  by  Mr.  Winthrop, 
and  insisted  that  if  such  was  the  fact  the  rule  was  a  nullity;  it  called  Cap¬ 
tain  York  into  Court  to  say  why  the  prayer  of  the  petitioner  should  not  be 
granted;  he  answers  and  says,  because  the  allegations  on  which  the  prayer 
is  founded  are  untrue,  and  requiring  the  libellant  to  sustain  them  by  proof; 
and  further,  if  true,  they  do  not  form  any  reason  for  taking  the  property 
from  the  person  in  lawful  possession;  that  no  agent  could  do  this  without 


ERRATA. — On  page  32,  10th  line,  instead  of  “about  half  past  ten  o'clock,  P.  M.," 
read  “about  half  past  one  o'clock,  P-  M.” 

On  page  27,  23d  line,  alter  the  word  “  proceedings,”  in  Mr.  Winthrop’s  remarks,  add 
the  words — so  as  to  read,  “with  which  he  was  well  acquainted,”  that  no  counsel.  &c. 

5 


exhibiting  his  authority.  For  that  reason,  if  no  other  existed,  these  pro¬ 
ceedings  should  be  dismissed,  as  the  agent  had  refused  to  exhibit  his  authority 
attempting  to  shield  himself  under  the  shallow  pretence  that  he  had  not 
been  required  to  do  so  by  competent  authority.  Mr.  B.  insisted  that  Cap¬ 
tain  York,  being  in  lawful  possession,  and  so  averred  in  the  bill  of  com¬ 
plaint,  xvas  the  competent  authority,  and  that  he  had  a  right  to  see  the  au¬ 
thority  under  xvliich  the  agent  acted  before  jhe  could  be  held  to  deliver  the 
property  of  a  third  party,  xvithout  the  intervention  of  any  Court,  or  before 
lie  could  proceed  one  step  in  the  business. 

Mr.  B.  went  on  to  add,  chat  inasmuch  as  the  Proctor  for  libellant  declined 
to  sustain  the  allegations  of  the  petition,  he,  although  not  called  upon  to  do 
so,  would  go  on  and  prove  some,  if  not  all  of  them  to  be  utterly  false;  and 
if  he  should  show  one  to  be  false,  the  whole  would  fall  as  unworthy  of  be¬ 
lief.  Whereupon,  Mr.  Barker  said,  it  would  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Chil¬ 
ton  had  sworn,  in  his  petition,  among  other  things,  that  Thomas  Hunter 
Holderness  was  the  sole  owner  of  the  barque  Aldebaran;  he  would  now 
call  the  Clerk  of  the  Recorder’s  Court  of  the  3d  Municipality,  to  prove  that 
Richard  H.  Chilton  swore  before  that  Court,  that  he  believed  there  were 
other  owners  in  that  vessel  than  the  one  named  in  the  register. 

Mr.  Barker  then  called — 

John  Eugene  Layet,  who  being  duly  sworn  on  the  part  of  respondent, 
deposed  that  he  is  Secretary  of  the  Recorder  of  Municipality  No.  3;  that  in 
the  examination  of  the  case  of  the  State  against  W.  B.  York,  charged  by 
Richard  Harrison  Chilton  with  an  intention  to  commit  a  breach  of  the 
peace,  lately  investigated  before  that  Recorder’s  Court,  Mr.  Chilton  being 
called  upon  as  a  witness,  testified  in  that  Court,  that  he  had  good  reason 
to  believe  there  were  other  owners  in  the  British  Barque  Aldebaran  than 
the  one  on  the  register  of  that  vessel.  That  he  had  commenced  taking 
this  testimony  down,  when  Mr.  Barker,  counsel  for  Captain  York  objected, 
saying  that  belief  was  not  legal  testimony;  so  the  Court  ruled,  and  what 
he  had  written  down  as  Chilton’s  belief  was  stricken  out. 

Cross-Examined  by  Mr.  Winthrop  for  Libellant. 

Did  not  Mr.  Chilton  say  that  he  did  not  know  that  Thomas  Chilton  was 
part  owner? 

Answer — Mr.  Chilton  said  he  fiad  good  reason  to  believe  that  Thomas 
Chilton  was  a  part  owner  of  the  barque  Aldebaran. 

Mr.  Barker  then  put  in  the  correspondence  with  Mr.  Mure,  Mr.  Win¬ 
throp  consenting  to  the  letters  being  read  as  genuine,  reserving  the  excep¬ 
tion  which  he  had  made  to  their  introduction,  and  their  contents.  [For 
these  letters  see  documents  marked  E,  F  and  D,  pages  13  and  14.] 

Mr.  Barker  then  called  Michael  Moore  to  prove  a  message  which  had 
been  sent  by  Mr.  Mure,  the  British  Consul  to  Mr.  Barker. 

Here  a  long  and  animated  discussion  took  place  between  the  Proctors. 

Mr.  Winthrop  insisted  that  Mr.  Mure  was  the  proper  witness,  and  said, 
let  him  be  called  and  state  what  he  had  said. 


35 


Mr.  Barker  insisted  that  Mr.  Mure  had  been  made  a  party  to  these 
proceedings.  If  what  was  stated  in  the  petition  was  true,  viz: 

“  That  the  action  and  jurisdiction  of  this  Court  are  invoked  herein  at  the  instance  and 
request  of  the  said  William  Mure,  representing  the  British  Government  at  the  said  port  of 
New  Orleans,” — 

It  would  (said  Mr.  Barker)  be  the  most  faithless  conduct  on  the  records  of 
any  Court;  that  he  could  not  believe  a  word  of  it,  as  he  had,  in  behalf  of 
his  client,  Cajit.  York,  negotiated  a  compromise  with  Mr.  Mure,  the  Consul 
recognizing  the  continued  command  of  Capt.  York;  consenting  to  his  dis¬ 
charging  James  Scott  the  Chief  Mate,  (which  had  been  the  orignal  bone 
of  contention,)  promising  not  to  interfere  further  with  Captain  York’s  au¬ 
thority  as  commander  of  the  Aldebaran,  and  referring  all  legal  proceedings, 
if  any  should  be  found  necessary,  to  the  Courts  of  England,  so  far  as  he, 
the  Consul,  and  the  British  Government  were  concerned,  leaving  Mr.  Chil¬ 
ton  at  liberty  to  pursue  his  own  course.  Mr.  Barker  said  he  could  not 
believe  it  possible  that  Mr.  Mure  was,  at  the  moment  of  receiving  the  apo¬ 
logy  agreed  on,  and  acknowledging  himself  satisfied — at  work  to  deprive 
Captain  York  of  the.  benefit  of  the  compromise.  That  so  far  as  he  knew, 
the  British  Consul’s  conduct  had  been  perfectly  honorable,  but,  if  the  alle¬ 
gation  in  the  petition  was  true,  its  whole  character  would  be  changed,  and 
the  testimony  of  his  own  letters,  together  with  that  of  several  witnesses  which 
would  be  introduced,  would  fill  every  mind  with  perfect  astonishment — and 
would  be  altogether  sufficient  to  induce  this  Court  to  dismiss  the  whole 
proceedings,  as  it  (the  Court)  could  not  allow  its  power  to  be  invoked  to 
sanction  any  such  conduct;  that  his  client  could  not,  under  the  circumstan¬ 
ces  of  the  case,  be  expected  to  make  Mr.  Mure  a  witness,  and  thereby  bo 
deprived  of  the  right  to  contradict  the  testimony  he  might  give — no  witness 
was  bound  to  criminate  himself — that  the  British  Consul  and  the  British 
Government  were  a  sort  of  party  to  these  proceedings:  the  whole  thing 
was  so  novel  that  he  (Mr.  B.)  did  not  know  how  to  treat  the  subject — that 
it  was  not  possible  for  either  to  extend  or  diminish  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
Court — that  Richard  Harrison  Chilton  or  the  owner  of  the  Aldebaran  were 
competent  to  maintain  a  suit  in  this,  or  any  other  Court  in  the  United 
States,  without  the  consent  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  or  her  Consul — that 
the  very  naming  of  them  in  the  petition  was  a  vassalage  unbecoming  free¬ 
men.  Besides,  (said  Mr.  B.)  there  was  no  authority,  English  or  Ameri¬ 
can,  for  such  a  proceeding;  the  law  relied  on  by  the  Consul,  cited  in  his 
own  letter,  is  for  the  protection  of  seamen  against  the  tyranny  of  ship 
masters;  it  makes  it  a  criminal  offence  to  leave  a  mate  or  sailor  in  a  for¬ 
eign  country  without  the  consent  of  the  Consul.  In  this  case  he  was  ap¬ 
plied  to  and  refused  his  consent,  there  ended  the  power  of  the  Consul. 
Had  the  Captain  put  the  mate  on  shore  in  defiance  of  the  Consul’s  idea- 
sure,  and  gone  home  without  him,  as  soon  as  he  arrived  within  the  British 
dominions,  he  would  have  been  liable  to  arrest,  trial  and  conviction,  for 
the  offence;  whidh  oflence  could  not  exist  prior  to  the  departure  of  the 
ship  without  the  mate;  had  this  happened,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Consul  to 
have  transmitted  to  his  Government  the  necessary  evidence. 

The  Court  then  allowed  witnesses  to  be  examined. 


36 


Michael  Moore,  for  respondent,  being  duly  sworn,  deposed  that  Mr. 
Mure,  the  British  Consul,  and  himself  were  in  the  Merchants  Exchange 
Reading  Rooms,  on  the  evening  of  the  21st  instant;  in  the  course  of  con¬ 
versation,  Mr.  Mure  asked  him  where  Mr.  Barker  was?  Witness  replied, 
at  his,  Mr.  Barker’s  house,  that  being  the  most  likely  place  to  find  him. 
The  conversation  then  turned  upon  the  subject  of  the  Aldebaran,  when 
Mr.  Mure  requested  him  (witness)  to  state  to  Mr.  Barker  that  he  under¬ 
stood  Mr.  Chilton  was  going  to  proceed  further  in  the  matter;  but  that  he 
(Mure)  had  nothing  more  to  do  in  it;  that  he  had  washed  his  hands  of  it, 
and  that  he  would  endeavor  to  dissuade  Mr.  Chilton  from  it. 

John  G.  Robinson,  for  respondent,  being  duly  sworn,  deposed  that  Mr. 
Mure  told  him  that  the  difficulty  with  Captain  York  of  the  Aldebaran  had 
been  arranged,  so  far  as  he  was  concerned;  that  he  had  washed  his  hands 
of  all  further  proceedings  in  the  matter,  on  this  side  of  the  water. 

Cross-Examined. 

These  proceedings  (the  libel  case,)  were  not  mentioned. 

Direct  Examination  resumed- 

Knows  it  was  in  relation  to  the  dispute  with  Captain  York;  this  conver¬ 
sation  took  place  within  two  or  three  days  past. 

Two  or  three  other  witnesses,  with  whom  the  British  Consul  had  had 
sin  dai  conversations,  (as  the  Proctors  for  respondent  stated  they  would 
be  able  to  prove  by  them,)  were  in  attendance  in  Court  in  the  morning, 
but  not  then  answering  to  the  call,  Mr.  Barker  said  he  would  not  detain 
the  Court  to  send  for  them,  as  the  testimony  already  given  was  all-suffi¬ 
cient  on  that  point, 

Mr.  Barker  then  asked  for  an  attachment  against  William  Mure,  Esq. 
stating  that  a  subpoena  duces  tecum  requiring  him  to  appear  and  produce 
the  letter  of  Messrs.  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.  referred  to  in  the  answer,  had 
been  issued  and  served  upon  him,  and  yet  Mr.  Mure  had  not  appeared  in 
Court. 

Mr.  Winthrop  stated  that  Mr.  Mure  was  sick  and  unable  to  come;  that 
he  had  been  sent  home  by  Dr.  Rushton;  that  he  (Mr.  W.)  would  admit  the 
copy  in  the  answer  to  be  a  true  copy,  or  so  in  substance,  reserving  his 
right  to  except  to  the  use  of  it. 

Mr.  Gordon,  also  a  witness  who  had  been  subpoened,  not  being  in  Court 
was  again  sent  for. 

Mr.  Winthrop  then  offered  himself  as  a  witness,  and  being  duly  sworn, 
deposed  that  Mr.  Mure,  the  Consul,  was  at  his  office  on  Monday  even¬ 
ing,  (21st;)  that  Mr.  Chilton  was  also  there;  that  Mr.  Mure  in  express 
terms,  consented  and  advised  the  institution  of  this  suit. 

Mr.  Barker  then  proposed  that  he  should  be  examined,  and  being  duly 
sworn,  deposed,  that  being  very  anxious  to  procure  a  reconciliation  of  the 
differences  between  the  parties,  he  called  on  the  British  Consul  on  the  17th 
instant,  and  stated  to  that  gentleman  that  he  supposed  matters  might  be 


37 


so  arranged  as  to  put  an  end  to  further  expense  and  delay.  Mr.  Mure 
seemed  very  willing  for  such  an  arrangement  to  be  made,  and  promised 
to  send  Mr.  Chilton  to  him  (witness)  to  arrange  the  terms.  Mr.  Chilton 
called  and  made  a  memorandum  of  what  he  would  agree  to,  and  what  wit¬ 
ness  promised  to  recommend  to  Captain  York.  Witness  believes  the 
heads  of  every  thing  agreed  upon  were  put  down  in  pencil  by  Mr.  Chilton. 
The  terms  agreed  on  were  that  all  litigation  was  to  terminate;  that  Mr. 
Chilton  was  to  pay  Captain  York  twelve  dollars  and  fifty  cents,  expenses 
incurred  by  the  seizure  of  his  chronometer  by  Chilton;  that  Captain  York 
was  to  make  a  satisfactory  explanation  to  the  Consul;  that  the  Consul  was 
to  give  permission  for  Captain  York  to  discharge  his  mate,  Scott;  and  that 
no  further  interruption  u-as  to  be  made,  or  attempted,  to  Captain  York's 
command  of  the  barque  Aldebaran;  that  Mr.  Chilton  or  the  Consul  weie  to 
arrange  with  the  mate;  and  that  Capt.  York  was  to  endeavor  to  reconcile 
matters  with  his  second  mate  and  crew.  Witness  then  accompanied  Mr. 
Chilton  to  the  Consul’s  office,  for  his  approbation;  when  Mr.  Chilton  stated 
the  aforesaid  terms  to  the  Consul,  holding  the  memorandunryn  his  hand,  and 
xvitness  believes  read  from  it.  The  Consul  said  it  was  all  very  well,  ex¬ 
cept  that  he  could  not  agree  to  release  Captain  York  from  prosecution  in 
England;  witness  replied  that  he  supposed  the  most  difficult  part  would  be 
to  agree  upon  such  an  explanation  as  would  be  satisfactory  to  him,  Mr. 
Mure.  Witness  then  remarked  to  the  Consul,  that  as  to  the  prosecution 
in  England,  Captain  York  had  not  done  any  wrong  and  ought  not  to  fear 
prosecution.  A  letter  was  then  drafted  by  witness,  which  met  the  appro¬ 
bation  of  the  Consul,  and  he  (the  Consul)  detailed  what  reply  he  would 
make,  wiih  which  witness  repaired  to  Captain  York,  who  approved  of  the 
letter,  but  refused  to  release  Mr.  Chilton  from  damages  without  he  was 
also  exhonerated  from  the  threatened  prosecution  in  England.  W itness  im¬ 
mediately  sent  a  messenger  to  Mr.  Chilton,  to  notify  him  of  Captain  York’s 
determination,  that  he  might  follow  up  his  complaint  before  the  Recorder 
if  he  thought  proper;  the  hout*to  which  the  examination  had  been  adjourn¬ 
ed  having  arrived.  The  messenger  delivered  the  message  and  accompa¬ 
nied  Mr.  Chilton  to  the  office  of  the  Consul,  and  heard  him  (Chilton)  no¬ 
tify  him  of  the  nature  of  the  message.  The  aforesaid  investigation  of  the 
alleged  intention  on  the  part  of  Captain  York  to  break  the  peace,  went  on, 
and  on  the  evening  of  that  day,  the  18th,  witness  wrote  the  letter  to  Mr. 
Mure  in  xvords  and  figures  following  : 


William  Mure,  Esq., 

H.  B.  Majesty’s  Consul : 


New  Orleans,  18th  April,  1845. 


Dear  Sir — Agreeably  to  promise  I  proceeded  from  your  office  immediately  to  the  “Aldeba¬ 
ran,”  and  submitted  to  Capt.  York  the  terms  suggested  fora  compromise  of  the  difficulties  in 
relation  to  the  command  of  that  vessel;  the  draft  of  a  letter  to  be  addressed  by  him  to  you  seem¬ 
ed  to  meet  bis  approbation,  conditioned  that  your  reply,  to  be  delivered  simultaneously, 
should  be  approved  by  him,  which,  from  our  conversation,  I  am  satisfied  would  be  the  case. 

lie,  however,  refuses  to  release  his  claims  on  Mr.  Chilton  for  damages  while  threatened 
with  legal  proceedings  against  him  on  the  other  side. 

Of  all  which  I  sent  my  clerk  to  notify  Mr.  Chilton,  that  be  might,  if  he  thought  proper, 
attend  to  the  prosecution  of  his  complaint,  which  Captain  York  could  not  control,  his  duty 
being  to  defend  himself.  Mr.  Chilton  not  having  thought  proper  to  withdraw  the  complaint, 


38 


the  trial  went  on  from  necessity;  during  the  progress  he  appeared,  and  supposing  the  com¬ 
promise  would  supersede  the  necessity  for  him  to  produce  his  authority,  was  not  then  pre¬ 
pared  to  do  so,  and  the  Court  adjourned  the  proceedings  until  1  o’clock  to-morrow,  to  allow 
him  time  to  furnish  the  necessary  proofs. 

Neither  the  State  nor  public  prosecutor  can  take  cognizance  of  any  arrangement  between 
the  parties,  hence  this  suit,  result  how  it  may,  should  not  interrupt  the  negotiation  for  a 
compromise,  which  I  yet  hope  may  take  place. 

Very  respectfully, 

Yourob’t.  serv’t, 

(Signed.)  JACOB  BARKER. 

Witness  continued — he  called  on  the  Consul  the  next  day,  and  found  him 
disposed  to  carry  into  effect  the  arrangement,  so  far  as  he  (the  Consul) 
was  concerned,  leaving  Mr.  Chilton  to  pursue  his  own  course;  and  accor¬ 
dingly  the  letter  of  apology  was  delivered.  Some  delay  taking  place  in 
furnishing  an  answer,  an  explanation  was  demanded,  on  the  morning  of 
the  21st  April.  The  Consul  in  reply  said  that  Mr.  Chilton  had  been  to 
see  Mr.  Gordon,  (Gordon,  Wylie  &  Go.)  and  that  the  said  Gordon  wished 
to  see  him  (the  British  Consul)  before  he  could  proceed  any  further.  Cap¬ 
tain  York  being  present,  proposed  to  accompany  the  Consul  to  Mr.  Gor¬ 
don’s  office,  in  older  to  ascertain  what  new  difficulty  had  sprung  up,  when 
the  said  Consul  refused  to  permit  him  to  do  so;  whereupon  Capt.  York  waited 
on  Mr.  Gordon  himself,  from  whom  he  received  a  letter,  saying  that  Cap¬ 
tain  York  had  agreed  not  to  ship  any  mate  for  the  Aldebaran  who  did  not 
meet  with  the  approbation  of  Messrs.  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.,  and  which 
was  all  that  could  be  reasonably  required  of  him. 

This  letter  was  immediately  delivered  to  the  Consul,  who  drafted  a  let¬ 
ter  to  be  sent  to  Captain  York,  in  answer  to  the  renewed  application  to 
discharge  the  mate,  coupled  with  the  apology,  the  Consul  at  the  same  time 
agreeing  that  the  permission  to  discharge  the  mate  should  be  endorsed  on 
the  shipping  articles  in  his  possession,  pursuant  to  the  requirements  of  the 
acts  of  Parliament,  reserving  Mr.  Scott’s  rights  as  conditioned  in  the  letter. 
Captain  York  being  in  haste  to  attend  to  his  duties  on  board  the  ship,  as 
commander,  and  the  Consul  wishing  to  make  a  fair  copy  of  the  letter  agreed 
upon,  retained  it  for  that  purpose,  and  promised  to  send  it  to  witness,  or  to 
Captain  York,  in  the  course  of  the  day;  in  the  afternoon  or  evening  the 
two  letters  which  have  been  read  in  evidence  were  sent  to  the  office  of 
witness,  addressed  by  the  Consul  to  Capt.  York. 

It  being  late,  and  Mr.  Gordon  not  having  been  found,  Mr.  Winthrop  pro¬ 
posed  to  the  Court  to  submit  the  case  on  the  evidence,  without  argument. 
Mr.  Barker  said  he  was  willing  that  the  argument  should  go  on,  on  the 
supposition  that  Mr.  Gordon  would  contradict  the  allegation  in  the  petition, 

That  Messrs.  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.  “  will  protest  against  her,  (the  said  barque,’  as  unsea¬ 
worthy  in  case  the  said  York  should  proceed  in  her  to  sea.  as  Captain  or  commander:” 

This  allegation,  said  Mr.  Barker,  is  true  or  false;  let  Mr.  Gordon 
come  in  the  morning  and  say  which.  He,  Mr.  B.,  had  but  that  single 
question  to  ask  that  witness. 

This  having  been  agreed  to,  the  Proctors  then  addressed  the  Court  in 
support  of  their  several  claims. 

Mr.  Winthrop,  for  libellant,  commenced  by  enforcing  on  the  attention 


39 


of  the  Court  what  he  had  urged  iu  opening  the  case,  insisting  on  its  being 
the  duty  of  the  Court  for  the  purposes  of  the  rule  under  discussion,  to  con¬ 
sider  all  the  allegations  contained  in  the  petition  as  true;  that  it  was  the 
right  of  his  client  to  have  the  property  on  giving  good  and  sufficient  bonds, 
which  he  was  prepared  to  do,  having  been  the  first  applicant ;  that  he,  Mr. 
W.,  was  well  acquainted  with  Admiralty  practice;  that  the  demurrage  of  the 
vessel,  seamen’s  wages,  and  other  expenses,  were  too  serious  for  the  Court 
to  permit  this  case  to  go  on,  and  hold  the  property  under  seizure  until  the 
final  action  of  the  trial  of  this  cause — which  might  not  be  arrived  at  under 
at  least  two  months — intimating  that  the  cargo,  which  consisted  of  cotton, 
was  a  very  speculative  article,  and  great  losses  might  ensue  by  a  change  in 
the  market  price ,  and  the  vessel  become  liable  therefor;  that  no  application 
had  been  made  on  the  part  of  Capt.  York  to  bond  the  barque;  that  his  client 
ought  to  have  been  met  with  a  counter  claim  to  bond  the  vessel,  and  that 
not  having  been  done,  he,  Mr.  W.,  insisted  that  the  Court  could  not  refuse 
their  application. 

Mr.  Barker  said  that  although  he  had  not  intended  to  offer  any  argu¬ 
ment,  and  should  not  at  that  late  hour  of  the  evening,  or  think  of  detaining 
the  court  another  day  as  the  barque  was  ready  for  sea,  and  hjs  client,  Cap¬ 
tain  York,  was  more  anxious  than  any  other  person  could  be,  to  avoid  ex¬ 
pense  and  delay:  yet  his  duty  compelled  him  to  offer  a  few  remarks.  As 
to  the  demurrage,  sailors  wages,  other  expenses,  and  damages  by  the  fall 
in  the  price  of  cotton,  these  were  matters  purely  applicable  to  the  complain¬ 
ant.  His  client  had  not  arrested  the  barque;  he  had  not  taken  any  pro¬ 
ceedings  to  bring  on  such  disasters;  he  had  not  yet  struck  the  first  blow;  all 
that  Captain  York  had  done  was  to  defend  himself.  His  client’s  turn 
would  come  sooner  or  later.  They,  (continued  Mr.  B.)  the  gentlemen, 
parties  to  this  libel  suit,  intending  to  break  the  peace  themselves,  put  my 
client  in  prison,  lest  they  should  provoke  him  to  do  so.  They  libel  the  ves¬ 
sel  and  occasion  all  the  evils  of  which  they  now  complain,  and  ask  the 
Court  to  protect  them  from  such  evils  by  invading  his  rights.  They  say 
because  the  application  was  first  made  by  them,  that  they  are  entitled  to 
bond  the  vessel.  First  indeed  !  yes,  before  we  did  or  could  know  of  these 
proceedings.  However,  that  point  does  not  come  up,  as  we  are  not  appli¬ 
cants  to  bond  the  vessel.  We  deny  that  we  can  be  required  to  bond,  any 
more  than  we  can  be  to  surrender  the  property  before  the  voyage  has  ter¬ 
minated,  without  an  allegation  of  danger  or  delinquency,  and  then  we 
should  have  a  right  to  traverse,  investigate,  discuss,  and  have  such  allega¬ 
tion  adjudged  before  we  could  be  deprived  of  our  property — our  character — 
or  our  honor — which  are  comprised  in  the  command. 

The  testimony  of  the  Proctor  who  has  just  spoken,  gave  me  (said  Mr. 
B.)  great  pain;  although  it  did  not  sustain  the  oath  of  his  client.  It,  un¬ 
explained,  went  far  enough  to  establish  the  bad  faith  of  the  British  Con¬ 
sul,  and  that  he  had  acted  a  double  part;  it  is  a  misfortune  to  that  gentle¬ 
man  that  he  should  be  taken  sick  at  the  very  moment  his  own  honor  re¬ 
quired  him  to  be  in  Court.  I  could  not  (added  Mr.  B.)  have  believed  Mr. 
Mure  capable  of  intrigueing  with  the  enemy  to  pursue  hostile  acts,  while 
he  was  pledging  himself  not  to  have  any  thing  further  to  do  in  the  matter 


40 


on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  at  the  same  time  professing  not  to  allow  his 
private  feelings  to  influence  his  official  conduct;  he  could  not  believe  he 
would  violate  the  condition  of  his  letters  of  the  21st,  as  found  in  the  respon¬ 
dent’s  answer,  before  the  ink  with  which  they  were  written  had  time  to 
dry;  that  he  would  fly  to  the  office  of  a  lawyer  the  moment  he  had  receiv¬ 
ed  the  apology,  and  request  proceedings  toie  instituted  which  he  had  stipu¬ 
lated  not  to  have  any  thing  to  do  with,  as  a  condition  on  which  the  apology 
should  be  made,  and  this  too  before  a  messenger  reached  Captain  York 
with  these  letters.  All  this  it  will  be  remembered  is  alleged  to  have  been 
done  on  the  same  day  on  which  the  Consul’s  letters  were  written,  the  21st 
April.  Mr.  Moore,  the  Proctor  for  the  libellant,  (Mr.  Winthrop,)  and  him¬ 
self,  in  their  testimony,  all  agreed  as  to  that  date,  nor  was  it  to  be  believ¬ 
ed  that  after  having  been  to  this  meeting  at  the  lawyer’s  office,  and  con¬ 
sented  to  and  advised,  I  will  not  say  requested  these  proceedings,  (as  I  do 
not  yet  believe  he  did  so,)  that  he  should  pi-oceed  directly  from  such  faith¬ 
less  conduct  to  the  Merchants  Exchange  in  search  of  Mr.  Barker,  to  ap¬ 
prize  him  that  Captain  York  was  in  danger  of  further  proceedings  from 
Mr.  Chilton — to  assure  him  (Mr.  B.)  that  he  had,  and  should  preserve  his 
plighted  faith,  and  not  have  any  thing  further  to  do  in  the  matter  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic — that  he  (the  Consul)  was  very  sorry,  and  would  en¬ 
deavor  to  dissuade  Mr.  Chilton  therefrom,  and  not  finding  Mr.  Barker  he 
sent  him,  (Mr.  B.)  by  his  friend  Mr.  Moore,  a  message  to  the  aforesaid 
effect.  All  this  is  in  proof!  and  said  Mr.  B.  will  this  Court  entertain  any 
further  proceedings  in  such  a  case? 

Mr.  Lacy,  also  for  the  respondent,  then  rose  and  said  that  the  Court 
and  all  parties  seemed  anxious  to  terminate  this  cause  this  evening,  all  be¬ 
ing  much  fatigued,  and  as  the  other  gentlemen  have  declined  to  go  into 
the  argument  at  length,  he  should  follow  their  example.  Excepting  alto¬ 
gether  to  the  position  of  the  Proctor  for  the  libellant,  “  that  the  Court  was 
bound  to  take  for  true,”  in  deciding  this  rule,  “  that  all  the  allegations  in  the 
petition  were  true,”  and  on  that  assumption  could  deprive  an  individual  of 
his  all,  and  involve  him  in  ruinous  responsibility.  The  doctrine,  said  Mr. 
L.  is  too  absurd,  too  dangerous,  to  be  entertained  by  this  or  any  other  Court. 
How  does  the  case  stand?  Sundry  allegations  are  made  under  oath,  on 
which  the  ship  is  arrested;  we  under  oath  deny  their  truth;  the  complain¬ 
ant  refuses  to  sustain  them  by  proof,  when  we  go  on  and  prove  them 
false,  and  in  the  face  of  such  testimony  we  are  told  that  the  Court  are  to 
take  them  all  for  true — what  can  be  more  preposterous?  Suppose  they 
were  all  true — the  complainant  admits  us  to  he  in  possession.  No  com¬ 
plaint  made  that  we  are  not  lawfully  so — no  proof  adduced  to  show  the  au¬ 
thority  of  the  agent,  not  even  a  letter ,  and,  strictly  speaking,  before  he  could 
be  recognized  to  carry  on  this,  or  any  other  suit,  he  must  produce  a  regular 
power  of  attorney,  under  seal,  duly  authenticated.  With  this  explanation, 
and  with  a  request  that  if  the  Court  should  find  any  difficulty  in  coming  to 
a  satisfactory  conclusion,  that  it  would  allow  the  Proctors  on  both  sides 
to  go  fully  into  the  argument — they  then  submitted  the  case  to  the  Court. 

Mr.  Winthrop  then  rose  and  said  that  he  had  no  further  remarks  to 
make,  as  he  understood  the  Court  to  recognize  the  position  he  assumed— 


41 


that  the  allegations  in  the  petition  were  prima  facie  evidence  of  their 
truth. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  at  a  late  hour. 

On  the  following  morning  the  Court  took  up  this  case,  to  receive  fur¬ 
ther  testimony. 

Alexander  Gordon,  for  respondent,  being  duly  sworn,  deposed  that 
he  did  not  say  that  his  firm  would  protest  against  the  barque  Aldebaran  as 
unseaworthy,  in  case  the  said  York  should  proceed  in  her  to  sea  as  Cap¬ 
tain  or  commander. 

Cross-Examined  by  Mr.  Winthrop  and  also  by  Mr,  Chilton. 

Witness  said  he  had  had  some  conversation  with  Mr.  Chilton,  about 
protesting  if  the  ship  went  to  sea  without  being  properly  manned,  but  this 
had  no  reference  to  Captain  York. 

Would,  said  Mr.  Chilton,  a  ship  be  seaworthy  with  an  intemperate  com¬ 
mander? 

Witness  answered,  certainly  that  would  be  a  radical  defect — that  he 
knew  nothing  of  Captain  York  being  intemperate,  that  he  had  never  seen 
him  so. 

Mr.  Barker  wished  to  resume  the  direct  examination  of  Mr.  Gordon. 

Mr.  Winthrop  objected,  saying  that  the  understanding  was  that  there 
should  be  but  one  question  propounded  to  the  witness  by  the  Proctor  for 
the  respondent — whether  or  not  the  allegation  in  the  petition  of  libellant  in 
relation  to  said  witness  was  true  or  false;  he  contended  that  it  had  been 
put  and  answered. 

Mr.  Barker  said  he  was  satisfied. 


DECISION  OF  THE  COURT. 

{Extract  from  the  Minutes.) 

The  Court  having  considered  the  rule  filed  in  this  cause  by  the  libel¬ 
lant,  delivered  this  day  its  judgment,  in  words  and  figures  following,  to 
wit: 

“  It  is  ordered  that  the  said  rule  be  dismissed.”  Whereupon,  on  motion  of 
John  Winthrop,  Esq.  of  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  in  rule,  it  is  ordered  a  re-hearing  be 
granted. 


6 


42 


REASONS  FOR  JUDGMENT. 

His  Honor  Judge  McCaleb,  afterwards  gave  the  following  reasons  in 
support  of  the  foregoing  judgment. 

Holderness 

vs.  y  In  Admiralty. 

The  British  Barque  Aldebaran.  J 

The  libel  in  this  case  sets  forth  that  Thomas  Hunter  Holderness,  of  Liv¬ 
erpool,  is  the  sole  and  registered  owner  of  the  barque  Aldebaran, now  Lin  the 
port  of  New  Orleans,  that  the  possession  of  said  barque  is  now  wrongfully 
withheld  from  the  agent  of  the  libellant,  here  present  and  representing  the 
owners,  to  wit,  Richard  H.  Chilton,  by  William  B.  York,  who  alleges 
himself  to  be  entitled  to  the  possession  thereof,  as  Captain,  although  he 
has  long  since  been  deprived  of  his  command  and  superseded  for  gross,  vi¬ 
olent,  improper  and  illegal  conduct,  by  the  action  of  said  agent  and  Wil¬ 
liam  Mure,  Esquire,  British  Consul  at  the  Port  of  New  Orleans,  acting  in 
his  official  capacity;  that  Richard  H.  Chilton  is  the  true  and  lawful  agent 
of  the  owner,  and  as  such  duly  authorized  and  empowered  to  act  in  the 
premises;  that  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.,  merchants  of  this  city,  are  now  load¬ 
ing  the  said  barque,  and  have  notified  the  agent  of  libellant,  that  they  will 
protest  against  her  as  unseaworthy,  in  case  said  York  should  proceed  in 
her  to  sea,  as  Captain  or  commander;  that  the  action  and  jurisdiction  of 
this  Court  are  invoked  herein,  at  the  instance  and  request  of  the  British 
Consul  at  this  port. 

The  libel  then  prays  for  process  according  to  the  course  of  Courts 
of  Admiralty  and  Marine  Jurisdiction,  against  the  barque,  and  that 
the  Captain  and  all  others  having  any  right,  title  or  interest  in  the 
same,  may  be  cited  to  shew  cause  why  possession  of  the  vessel  should 
not  be  delivered  to  the  libellant.  The  libel  is  sworn  to  by  Richard 
H.  Chilton,  representing  himself  as  agent  of  the  libellant.  Process  was 
issued  against  the  vessel  and  she  was  taken  into  custody  by  the  Marshal 
of  this  Court, 

A  rule  was  then  taken  on  the  Captain  to  show  cause  why  the  vessel 
should  not  be  delivered  up  to  Chilton,  upon  his  giving  bond,  with  good  and 
sufficient  security  in  such  sum  as  the  Court  might  direct. 

The  Captain  accordingly  appeared  and  in  answer  to  the  rule,  admitted 
that  he  was  in  possession  of  the  vessel  as  Master,  and  represented  under 
oath  that  he  was  of  Hull  in  England;  that  before  his  appointment  the  ves¬ 
sel  may  have  been  in  the  possession  and  ownership  of  the  libellant,  but  he 
does  not  know  positively;  that  if  Thomas  Hunter  Holderness,  of  Liverpool, 
is,  as  he  believes,  the  sole  owner,  he  does  not  know  on  what  terms  Thom¬ 
as  Holderness,  of  Hull,  received  her  from  him  then  or  soon  after,  subject 
to  a  charter  to  be  carried  into  effect  through  the  agency  of  Gordon,  Wylie 
&  Co.  of  this  city;  to  all  of  whom  he  probably  has  to  account  for  his  own  pos¬ 
session  and  stewardship,  and  he  denies  that  any  or  either  of  them  are  oth¬ 
erwise  in  possession,  and  refuses  to  surrender  until  the  vessel  returns  to 


43 

Hull.  He  alleges  that  when  a  claim  was  first  made  on  him  for  possession, 
he  was  willing  to  comply,  and  to  deliver  the  barque  to  any  person  duly  au¬ 
thorized  to  represent  his  owner,  (waiving  his  own  legal  rights,)  and  for 
this  purpose  he  demanded  the  authority  of  the  individual  pretending  to  be 
authorized;  that  this  was  refused  and  a  most  relentless  war  was  commenced 
and  carried  on  against  him  by  R.  H.  Chilton,  the  pretended  agent.  He 
claims  his  legal  rights,  and  insists  that  so  long  as  he  continues  to  prosecute 
the  voyage  agreeably  to  his  instructions,  there  is  no  power  competent  to 
remove  him  from  his  command  until  the  voyage  has  terminated;  that  he 
knows  nothing  of  the  authority  of  Chilton  beyond  the  allusion  made  to  him 
in  his  (respondent’s)  sailing  orders,  wherein  he  is  required  to  consult  said 
Chilton  as  to  the  best  method  ofproeuring  a  flat  boat  in  this  port  for  dun- 
naging  the  vessel.  He  declares  that  when  Chilton  claimed  to  exercise 
authority,  he,  by  his  counsel,  asked  through  the  British  Consul,  permission 
to  see  it;  that  instead  of  having  his  request  complied  with,  he  was  thrown 
into  prison  at  the  instance  of  Chilton,  who  endeavored  to  excite  rebellion 
among  the  crew  of  the  vessel;  and  in  the  discussion  of  the  cause  of  his  con¬ 
finement  before  a  tribunal  of  his  (Chilton’s)  own  selection,  the  said  Chilton 
was  required  to  produce  his  authority,  which  was  refused.  He  alleges  that 
Mr.  Gordon,  of  the  firm  of  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.  has  expressed  himself 
satisfied  with  his  conduct,  and  he  insists  upon  his  right  to  hold  possession 
of  the  barque. 

I  have  stated  all  the  facts  set  up  in  this  answer  to  the  rule,  which  are 
material  to  the  decision  upon  the  application  of  the  libellants. 

The  libel  presents  a  fair  case  for  the  interposition  of  the  Court,  and  if  its 
allegations  were  uncontradicted,  my  course  would  be  a  plain  one.  The 
answer,  however,  makes  out  a  strong  case,  both  in  law  and  equity,  in  favor 
of  the  Master,  and  in  the  absence  of  the  proof  which  becomes  absolutely 
necessary  to  sustain  the  libel,  I  am  compelled  to  refuse  the  relief 
sought  by  the  individual  claiming  to  be  the  agent  of  the  owners.  The 
oath  of  the  Master  must  have  the  same  legal  force  as  the  oath  of  the  agent, 
and  in  this  case,  in  one  material  point,  it  is  sustained  by  the  oath  of  Mr. 
Gordon,  of  the  firm  of  Gordon,  Wylie  &  Co.,  who  declares  that  he  did  not 
notify  Chilton  that  his  house  would  protest  if  Capti  in  York  should  go  to 
sea  as  Master  of  the  barque  Aldebaran. 

No  evidence  has  been  adduced  to  establish  the  ownership  of  the  vessel, 
or  the  agency  of  Chilton.  There  is  indeed  reason  to  believe  that  Thomas 
Hunter  Holderness,  of  Liverpool,  is  the  owner  of  the  barque,  but  it  is  clear 
from  the  answer,  and  from  the  sailing  orders  of  the  Master,  given  in  evi¬ 
dence,  that  the  vessel  is  in  possession  of  the  respondent,  by  virtue  of  a 
charter  to  Thomas  Holderness,  of  Hull.  The  sailing  orders  are  signed  by 
Holderness  &  Chilton,  and  dated  at  Hull.  It  is  not  pretended  that  the 
Chilton  here  named  is  the  individual  claiming  to  be  the  agent  of  the  owners 
in  this  libel.  How  far  the  register  could  be  regarded  as  legal  evidence  ot 
ownership  is  a  question  which  I  need  not  decide,  since  that  the  register 
was  not  offered  in  evidence  on  the  trial  of  the  rule.  The  respondent  has 
shewn  that  he  was  willing  to  surrender  the  vessel  to  any  person  having  the 
legal  authority  to  receive  her.  That  authority  has  never  been  produced, 


44 


and  although  the  libel  sworn  to  presented  a  case  strong  enough  to  call  for 
the  interposition  of  the  Court  upon  those  rules  and  principles  of  national 
comity  upon  which  Courts  of  Admiralty  act  in  matters  of  this  nature,  yet 
when  the  very  facts  set  forth  are  put  at  issue  by  the  answer,  also  sworn  io, 
it  would  be  out  of  the  power  of  the  Court  to  grant  the  relief  sought  for  with¬ 
out  evidence  to  justify  it.  The  direct  responsibility  of  the  Master  to  the 
charterers  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  refusing  to  surrender  the  vessel  except 
to  a  person  armed  with  full  authority  to  receive  her. 

As  a  principle  of  Admiralty  law,  it  is  clear  that  an  owner  may  dispos¬ 
sess  a  master;  and  where  there  are  several  owners,  a  majority  is  sufficient 
to  authorize  the  removal.  In  the  case  of  the  “New  Draper,”  (4.  Robin¬ 
son’s  Admiralty  Reports,  237,)  Sir  William  Scott  holds  the  following 
language  : 

“  This  is  a  proceeding  for  the  purpose  of  dispossessing  a  master  and 
pari  owner  of  a  ship  which  had  been  under  his  command.  The  dispossess 
sion  of  a  master  is  in  its  nature  not  an  uncommon  proceeding;  all  that 
the  Court  requires  in  cases  where  the  master  is  not  an  owner,  is  that  the 
majority  of  the  proprietors  should  declare  their  dis-inclination  to  continue 
him  in  possession. 

“  In  the  case  of  a  master  and  part  owner  something  more  is  required, 
before  the  Court  will  proceed  to  dispossess  a  person  who  is  also  a  proprie¬ 
tor  in  the  vessel,  and  whose  possession,  therefore,  the  common  law  is, 
upon  general  principles,  inclined  to  maintain.  It  is  not,  however,  by  any 
means  unprecedented  for  this  Court  to  proceed  even  to  that  extent;  but, 
then,  some  special  reason  is  commonly  stated,  to  induce  the  Court  to  in¬ 
terpose.” 

In  this  case  we  find  that  for  cause  shown  a  Master,  who  was  also  a 
part  owner,  was  removed  from  the  command  of  a  ship ;  and  it  is  clear, 
that  in  the  case  of  a  master,  not  a  part  owner,  it  is  only  necessary  that 
the  owner,  or  a  majority  of  owners,  if  there  are  more  than  one,  should 
declare  their  disinclination  to  keep  him  in  possession,  to  justify  the  Court  in 
decreeing  a  removal.  If  the  application  in  this  case  were  sustained  by 
proper  evidence,  I  should  feel  bound  to  grant  it. 

The  question  of  jurisdiction,  although  not  directly  raised  in  argument, 
or  by  the  pleadings,  has  not  escaped  the  attention  of  the  Court.  It  is  a 
question  always  of  primary  importance,  and  one  which  I  feel  at  all  times 
bound  to  examine. 

In  contests  between  foreigners,  the  Courts  of  Admiralty,  both  in  this 
country  and  in  England,  usually  decline  exercising  jurisdiction,  and  refer 
the  parties  to  their  own  tribunals.  There  are  cases,  however,  where, 
from  necessity  and  upon  principles  of  national  comity,  a  contrary  course  is 
pursued.  “It  is  with  the  greatest  reluctance,”  says  Sir  William  Scott, 
“that  this  Court  takes  up  questions  of  this  kind,  where  foreigners  are 
alone  concerned.  These  are  questions  which  do  not  properly  belong  to 
this  jus  gentium ,  but  depends  upon  the  municipal  regulations  of  different 
countries,  with  which  this  Court  can  be  but  imperfectly  acquainted. 
The  Court,  is,  therefore,  very  unwilling  to  enter  upon  such  questions,  and 
has  never,  I  believe,  entertained  suits  of  this  kind,  (a  cause  of  possession). 


45 


unless  the  cases  have  been  referred  to  its  decision  by  the  consent  of  par¬ 
ties,  or  by  the  intervention  of  the  representative  of  the  foreign  State,  devol¬ 
ving  the  jurisdiction  of  his  own  country  on  this  Court.”  (See  the  case  of 
the  Deuter  1st  Haggard.) 

I  have,  by  consent  of  the  parties,  taken  jurisdiction  of  the  cause  before 
me,  and  not  by  the  intervention  of  the  British  Consul  at  this  port.  He  is 
not  the  representative  of  Great  Britain,  in  the  sense  in  which  that  term 
is  used  in  the  authority  just  cited,  but  stands  before  the  Court  simply  in 
the  light  of  a  Commercial  Agent,  and  certainly  without  the  necessary 
power  to  devolve  the  jurisdiction  of  his  own  country  upon  this  tribunal. 

For  the  reasons  here  given,  ana  in  the  absence  of  the  necessary  evi¬ 
dence  to  establish  the  alleged  ownership  and  agency,  I  must  discharge 
the  Rule,  and  the  same  is  discharged  accordingly. 


When  the  Court  had  delivered  its  judgment,  with  the  reasons  for  arri¬ 
ving  at  such  decision,  Mr.  Winthrop,  Proctor  for  libellant,  expressed  great 
surprise,  saying  he  had  understood  the  Court  to  assent  to  the  proposition, 
that  all  the  allegations  in  the  petition  were  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  this 
Rule,  to  be  taken  for  true,  therefore  he  had  not  adduced  proof  which  he 
held;  nor  proceeded  to  sum  up  the  case. 

The  Court  in  reply  said,  certainly  not  to  be  taken  for  true,  when  denied 
by  the  defendant  under  oath,  and  contradicted  by  testimony. 

The  learned  Proctor  then  asked  for  a  re-hearing,  that  he  might  offer 
proof. 

The  Court  said  in  reply,  that  the  case  had  been  decided,  but  that  under 
the  allegation  of  surprise,  it  could  not  refuse  a  re-hearing  on  the  presenta¬ 
tion  of  the  necessary  affidavit;  but  that  the  re-hearing  must  be  had  after 
notice  to  the  opposite  party,  and  take  its  place  on  the  calender  of  next 
week;  that  all  other  business  could  not  be  crowded  out  to  give  place  to 
this,  when  they  already  had  had  abundance  of  time  to  produce  proof,  if 
they  had  been  inclined  to  do  so.  The  affidavit  was  drawn  up,  read  to  the 
Court,  and  a  re-hearing  ordered  accordingly. 


The  attention  of  the  reader  is  now  called  to  the  proceedings  which  fol¬ 
lowed  immediately  after  this  decision  was  given,  remarking  by  the  way, 
that,  although  the  affidavit  just  alluded  to  was  prepared  and  read  in  Court, 
still  it  was  not  filed  or  heard  of  afterwards. 

The  documents  will  speak  for  themselves;  the  repulsed  enemy  was  still 
resolved  on  his  purpose  and  its  accomplishment,  no  matter  by  what  means 
the  object  was  attained.  If  it  was  the  desire  or  intention  of  the  compiler 
to  take  particular  sides  in  this  controversy,  strict  justice,  and  a  true  narra¬ 
tive  of  facts,  would  induce  him  to  show  several  clandestine  plans  which 
have  come  to  his  knowledge,  in  order  to  get  the  barque  from  her  moorings 
between  the  above  decision,  on  Saturday  morning,  and  the  following 
Mondaypthose,  however,  proving  abortive,  he  sees  no  necessity  for,  and 
goes  again  to  the  record. 


46 


Before  the  next  proceedings  in  Court  are  arrived  at,  it  is  deemed  well  to 
notice  a  fact  which  has  been  furnished  to  him,  in  reference  to  the  faith  of  the 
Consul.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  British  Consul  had  granted  'per¬ 
mission  to  Captain  York,  in  his  letter  of  the  21st  April,  (as  found  on  page 
31,)  to  discharge' James  Scott.,  the  chief  mate  of  the  Aldebaran,  and  en¬ 
dorse  the  same,  as  a  matter  of  course,  on  the  shipping  articles  of  the  ves¬ 
sel.  This  not  having  been  done,  Captain  York  proceeded  with  a  Notary 
to  the  office  of  the  Consul,  and  made  the  necessaiy  demand;  the  Consul 
being  absent,  notice  of  the  demand  was  left  by  the  Notary,  and  this  an¬ 
swer  elicited. 


British  Consulate,  New  Orleans,  April  26th,  1845. 

William  Christy,  Esq., 

Notary  Public; 

Dear  Sir — I  have  received  your  note,  demanding  that  I  shall  endorse  on  the  shipping- 
articles  of  the  barrpie  Aldebaran  the  discharge  of  James  Scott  as  mate  of  said  vessel,  and 
regret  that  I  cannot  comply  with  same:  first,  because  James  Scott  is  not  discharged;  and 
second,  because  I  am  informed  that  the  barque  has  cleared  this  day  at  the  Custom  House 
in  command  of  another  captain. 

I  am,  sir, 

Yours,  respectfully, 

(Signed.)  WM.  MURE, 

H.  B.  M.  Consul. 

Whereupon  the  Notary  protested,  &c. 

The  name  of  the  negligent  abusive  and  discarded  mate,  Scott,  which  had 
been  inserted  on  the  register  by  the  British  Consul,  as  master,  in  place  of 
Captain  York,  was  erased  with  a  sharp  instrument;  he  re-enstated  as  mate, 
another  person  appointed  as  master,  his  name  endorsed  by  the  Consul  on 
the  register,  and  the  ship  cleared  at  the  Consul’s  office  under  the  command 
of  this  new  captain,  in  violation  of  the  treaty  made  with  Captain  York  on 
the  21st  of  April,  yet  the  Consul,  on  the  26th,  writes  that  he  regrets  that 
he  cannot  comply  with  Captain  York’s  demand  to  have  permission  to  dis¬ 
charge  the  mate,  endorsed  on  the  shipping  articles,  pursuant  to  the  terms 
of  that  treaty,  and  pursuant  with  the  requirements  of  the  British  law. 

Perceiving  that  in  the  absence  of  the  Marshal  from  the  city,  the  keeper, 
acting  under  the  direction  of  the  Proctor  for  the  libellant,  rather  than  the 
authority  of  the  Court,  had  withdrawn  from  the  vessel,  and  that  the  said 
Chilton  was  preparing  to  send  her  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  in 
defiance  of  all  law  and  authority  and  before  the  re-hearing  which  had  been 
ordered  had  taken  place,  application  was  made  by  Captain  York  to  His 
Honor  Judge  M’Caleb,  to  interpose  his  authority  to  call  back  the  Marshal’s 
officers  to  their  duty — hence  the  following  affidavit : 


47 


FURTHER  PROCEEDINGS  IN  THE  U.  S.  COURT. 

DISTRICT  COURT  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

FOR  THE 

DISTRICT  OF  LOUISIANA. 


AFFIDAVIT  OF  CAPTAIN  YORK. 


Thomas  Hunter  Holderness 
vs. 

British  barque  Aldebaran 


United  States 
District  Court. 


Monday ,  28 th  April,  1845. 

Present: — His  Honor,  Theodore  H.  M’Caleb,  Judge. 

This  day  personally  appeared  before  the  undersigned,  William  B.  York,  who  makes 
oath  that  the  British  barque  Aldebaran,  which  was  seized  by  virtue  of  the  process  of  the 
Honorable  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  district  of  Louisiana,  in  the  suit 
of  Thomas  H.  Holderness  vs.  said  barque  Aldebaran  and  deponent,  and  held  by  the 
Marshal  of  the  United  States  for  said  district,  has  been  surrendered  and  abandoned  by 
said  Marshal  to  the  custody  of  others;  and  that  the  said,  vessel  is  now  on  the  eve  of 
being  taken  from  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  this  honorable  Court.  The  deponent  York, 
therefore  prays  that  an  order  may  issue,  directing  the  said  Marshal  to  take  and  keep 
possession  of  the  said  vessel  until  the  further  orders  of  this  honorable  Court- 

(Signed.)  WM.  B.  YORK. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  28th  day  of  April,  1845. 

(Signed  )  THEO.  H.  M'CALEB, 

U.  S.  Judge. 

On  filing  the  written  affidavit  of  W.  B.  York,  (as  above)  the  court  gave 
an  order  thereon,  in  the  words  and  figures  following,  to-wit: 

Upon  the  within  affidavit  — It  is  ordered  that  the  Marshal  do  retain  possession  of  the 
vessel,  unless  the  libel  be  regularly  withdrawn- 

(Signed.)  THEO.  H.  M’CALEB, 

U.  S.  Judge. 


Thereupon  an  order  was  issued  by  the  Clerk  of  said  Court,  directing 
the  said  Marshal  to  act  in  accordance  therewiU^_  «  j 

Note. — Late  in  the  evening  of  the  same  day  the  libellant,  through'  Messrs.  ^Slriittm 
and  Mure,  applied  to  the  Judge  and  obtained  the  order  which  now  follows.  Particular 
attention  is  directed  to  the  wording  of  the  order  of  the  Judge,  and  that  issued  to  the  U. 

S.  Marshal  to  release  the  vessel,  purporting  to  be  founded  upon  it;  no  direction  was 
given  as  to  the  possession;  and  not  a  word  said  about  delivering  the  vessel  ‘‘to  the  said 
Thomas  H.  Holderness,  or  his  agent.” 

If  the  libel  had  been  really  withdrawn  by  the  libellant,  then  the  possession  still  remain¬ 
ed  in  Captain  York,  for  he  was  in  possession  of  the  vessel  when  she  was  libelled,  and 
they  had  failed  to  show  why  he  should  not  retain  it. 


SECOND  ORDER. 


Thomas  Hunter  Holderness, 
vs. 

British  Barque  Aldebaran. 


U.  S.  District 
Court. 


Monday,  April  28lli,  1845. 

Present — His  Honor,  T.  H.  M’Caleb,  Judge. 

The  following  order  was  this  day  granted  by  the  Court,  after  the  above,  to-wit:  “T  ,ie 
Proctor  for  libellant  in  this  case  has  asked  for  an  order  to  discontinue  the  libel;  as  there 
seems  to  be  no  reason  why  this  order  should  not  be  granted,  the  clerk  will  enter  an  or¬ 
der  to  that  effect,  upon  the  payment  of  costs.” 

Clerk’s  Office,  April  29th,  1845. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  above  are  true  and  correct  extracts  from  the  minutes. 

(Signed,)  N.  R.  JENNINGS,  Clerk. 


ORDER  TO  THE  MARSHAL. 


UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA - -  EASTERN  DISTRICT  OF  LOUISIANA. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  the  Marshal  of  the 
Eastern  District  of  Louisiana,  or  his  lawful  Deputy,  Greeting : 

Whereas  in  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  and  for  the  Eastern  District  of 
Louisiana,  the  Judge  has  this  day  issued  the  following  order,  to-wit :  Holderness  vs. 
the  barque  Aldebaran,  the  Proctor  for  libellant  ill  this  case  has  asked  for  an  order  to  dis¬ 
continue  the  libel.  As  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  this  order  should  not  be  granted, 
the  Clerk  will  enter  an  order  to  that  effect,  upon  payment  of  costs. 

Under  this  order  of  the  Court,  the  barque  Aldebaran,  libelled  by  Thomas  Hunter 
Holderness,  haslbeen  released  from  seizure,  according  to  law,  and  the  costs  of  suit  up  to 
this  date  having  been  paid,  you  are  hereby  commanded,  conformably  to  law,  and  the 
order  of  the  said  Court,  to  cause  the  said  barque  Aldebaran  to  be  delivered  to  the  said 
Thomas  Ii.  Holderness,  or  his  Agent,  and  herein  make  return. 

t  1  Witness,  the  Honorable  Theodore  H.  McCaleb,  Judge  of  said  Court, 

]  L.  S.  >  at  New  Orleans,  this  28th  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1845,  and  69th  year  of  the 
l  )  Independence  of  the  United  States. 

(Signed.)  N.  R.  JENNINGS,  Clerk. 

ENDORSEMENTS. 


New  Orleans,  April  28.th,  1815.  Received  from  I.  P.  Walden,  Esq.,  in  conformity 
with  the  within  order  of  Court,  the  barque  Aldebaran  and  cargo. 

«t  Cousin  full  to  be  paid  to  the  Marshal. 

**  ■**  A  Vi  R .  H.  C  HILT  O  N , 

••1"'  •**  *  Agent. 

All  the  costs,  as  charged  by  the  Marshal,  to  be  paid  by  J.  Winthrop. 

(Signed.)  R.  M.  CARTER, 

Attorney. 

UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT - FOR  THE  DISTRICT  OF  LOUISIANA. 

Clerk’s  Office,  April  29th,  1845. 

5  r  «  l  I  hereby  certify  that  the  foregoing  ia  a  true  copy  from  the  original  on  file. 
I  u  b-  *  (Signed.)  N.  R.  JENNINGS,  Clerk. 


The  Aldebaran  and  cargo,  probably  worth  one  hundred  thousand  dollars, 
was  thus  delivered,  by  the  Deputy  Marshal,  to  irresponsible  persons,  who, 
in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  sent  her  in  the  stillness  of  the  night,  beyond 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court,  and  before  the  rising  of  the  sun  on  the  follow¬ 
ing  day,  before  the  Court  assembled,  or  could  even  hear  of  the  abuse  of 
its  authority,  she  was  far  out  of  reach;  and  the  first  intimation  His  Honor 
the  Judge  could  gain  of  it,  was  the  exulting  notice  of  the  barque  Aldebaran 
in  two  of  the  morning  newspapers,  inserted  there  by  Messrs.  Mure  and 
Chilton,  who  repaired  in  person,  late  the  same  night,  to  the  different  print¬ 
ing  offices,  to  herald  forth  their  exploit.  The  following  from  the  Crescent 
City  of  Tuesday  morning,  the  29  th  April,  is  inserted  as  an  example : 

“Tiie  late  Libel  suit  in  Admiralty.— Yesterday  evening  the  barque  Aldebaran, 
Capt.  Turner,  went  to  sea  under  the  command  of  her  new  Captain,  having  been  released  by 
Judge  McCaleb.  The  decision  seemed  to  give  great  joy  to  the  crew,  and  the  vessel  left  the 
Levee  their  cheering  cry  gave  little  response  to  the  lachrymose  speeches  of  the  counsel  of 
the  displaced  captain.  All  seemed  well  under  the  new  arrangement,  and  we  apprehend 
that  no  harm  has  been  done  any  honest  party. 


PROCEEDINGS 

Consequent  upon  the  last  mentioned  order ,  and  delivery  of  the  vessel  out  of 
the  possession  of  the  Marshal,  between  9  and  10  o'clock,  P.  M.,  on  Mon¬ 
day,  the  28 th  of  April,  1845, 


AGAINST 

RICHARD  HARRISON  CHILTON,  WILLIAM  MURE,  JOHN 
WINTHROP,  JOHN  CLAIBORNE  and  N.  R.  JENNINGS, 

For  Contempt  of  Court  in  aiding  and.  abetting  in  the  issuing  said  order. 


AFFIDAVIT  OF  CAPTAIN  YORK, 


AFTER  THE  DEPARTURE  OF  HIS  VESSEL- 

Thomas  Hunter  Holderness,  4 

vs.  >  United  States  District  Court  for  the  Dis- 

British  Barque  Aldebaran.  )  trict  of  Louisiana. 

William  Broader  York  being  duly  sworn  deposes  and  says,  that  he.  was  the  Com 
mander  of  the  British  Barque  Aldebaran,  that  the  said  vessel  was  seized  and  taken  posses 
sion  of  by  the  Marshal  of  the  United  Stales  for  the  District  of  Louisiana,  under  a  process 


of  this  Honorable  Court  on  thq  twenty  second  Jay  of  April,  1845;  that  certain  persons,  at 
i he  instance  of  William  Mure  aiul  Richard  Harrison  Chilton,  took  forcible  possession  of  the 
said  vessel,  on  Monday  the  28th  day  of  April,  instant,  in  defiance  of  the  authority  of  this 
Court,  and  of  the  remonstrance  of  William  Sharron,  the  Deputy  Marshal,  or  keeper,  who 
had  been  appointed  by  the  said  Marshal  to  lake  care  of  said  vessel,  and  who  had  her  in 
charge,  cut  said  vessel  from  her  moorings  and  took  her  from  the  Levee  in  tow  of  the  steam 
tow  boat  called  the  “  Geneva,”  carrying  off  the  sad  Deputy  Marshal  or  keeper.  That  soon 
afterwards  J.  P.  Walden,  another  Deputy  Marshal,  procured  the  aid  of  the  steam  tow  boat 
”  Star,”  and  brought  the  said  barque  Aldebaran,  back  to  the  Levee  where  she  w'as  met  by 
Richard  Harrison  Chilton,  Richard  M.  Carter,  William  Mure  and  John  Winthrop,  some  01 
all  of  whom  entered  the  cabin  of  the  said  barque  Aldebaran  with  the  said  Walden;  an  or¬ 
der  was  presented  to  the  said  Deputy  Marshal,  or  keeper,  in  words  and  figures  following: 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA - EASTERN  DISTRICT  OF  LOUISIANA. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  the  Marshal  of  the  Dis¬ 
trict  of  Louisiana,  or  to  his  lawful  Deputy — Greeting  : 

Whereas,  in  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  and  for  the  Eastern  District  of 
Louisiana,  the  Judge  has  this  day  issued  the  following  order,  to  wit : 

“■  Holderness  vs.  The  Barque  Aldebaran — The  Proctor  for  libellant  in  this  case  has  asked 
for  an  order  to  discontinue  the  libel.  -As  there  .seems  to  be  no  reason  why  this  order  should 
not  be  granted,  the  Clerk  will  enter  an  order  to  that  effect  upon  payment  of  costs.” 

Under  this  order  of  the  Court,  the  barque  Aldebaran,  libelled  by  Thomas  Hunter  Hol- 
derness,  has  been  released  from  seizure  according  to  law,  and  the  costs  of  suit  up  to  this 
date  having  been  paid,  you  are  hereby  commanded  conformably  to  law,  and  the  order  of 
said  Court,  to  cause  the  said  barque  Aldebaran  to  be  delivered  to  the  said  Thomas  H.  Hol- 
derness,or  his  agent,  and  hereon  make  return. 

{)  Witness,  the  Honorable  Theodore  H.  McCaleb,  Judge  of  the  said  Court, 
L.  S.  >  at  New'  Orleans,  this  28lh  day  of  April,  A.  D.  1845,  and  the  69th  year  of  the 
)  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

(Signed,)  N.  R.  JENNINGS, Clerk. 

That  on  the  presentation  of  the  foregoing  order,  the  said  Deputy  Marshal,  or  keeper,  deliv 
ered  to  the  said  Richard  Harrison  Chilton  the  said  barque  Aldebaran,  for  which  he  gave  to 
the  said  Deputy  Marshal,  or  keeper,  a  receipt  in  words  and  figures  following : 


ENDORSEMENT. 

“  New  Orleans,  April  23th,  1845.  Received  from  J.  P.  Walden,  Esq.  in  conformity 
of  the  within  order  of  Court,  the  barque  Aldebaran  and  cargo. 

Costs  in  full  to  be  paid  to  the  Marshal. 

$16  paid  men.” 

(Signed,)  R.  H.  CHILTON, 

Agent. 

And  that  at  the  foot  of  which  said  receipt  was  added  the  following  stipulation: 

“  All  costs  as  charged  by  the  Mashal,  to  be  paid  by  J.  Winthrop.” 

(Signed,)  R.  M.  CARTER, 

Att’y. 


That  immediately  after  which  the  said  barque  was  taken  in  tow  of  the  steam  tow  boat 
called  the  “  Shark,”  by  order  of  the  said  Richard  H.  Chilton,  who  sent  her  for  sea,  beyond 
the  jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  carrying  off  a  great  portion  of  the  baggage  of  this  deponent, 
and  refusing  to  allow  him  time  to  take  the  same  on  shore;  the  said  Chilton  at  the  time  being 
assisted  by  the  said  William  Mure,  and  by  the  advice  and  counsel  of  the  said  John 
Winthrop. 

This  deponent  further  says,  that  he  has  been  informed,  and  believes,  that  on  the  evening 
of  the  said  twenty  eighth  day  of  April,  the  said  Chilton  applied  at  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of 
this  Honorable  Court,  accompanied  by  tire  said  William  Mure,  John  Winthrop,  and  John 
Claiborne,  Esquires,  and  demanded  ofN.  R.  Jennings,  Esquire,  Clerk  of  the  said  Court,  the 


51 


said  order;  lhat  the  same  was  filled  up  by  the  said  John  Claiborne,  Esquire,  and  signed  by 
the  saidN.  R.  Jennings,  as  Clerk,  who  caused  the  seal  of  this  Court  to  be  affixed  thereto. 

This  deponent  further  says,  that  the  suit  in  which  the  said  vessel  was  seized,  had  not 
been  discontinued,  nor  had  the  costs  been  paid,  as  he  has  been  informed  by  the  Clerks  in 
the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  this  Court.,  and  believes,  up  to  2  o’clock,  P.  M.  of  the  thirtieth  day 
of  April,  instant. 

(Signed,)  WILLIAM  BROADER  YORK. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  1st  May,  1845. 

(Signed,)  THEO.  H.  McCALRB, 

U.  S.  Judge. 


COPY  OF  RULE. 

Thomas  Hunter  Holclerness,  )  District  Court  of  the  United  States 
vs.  >  for  the  District  of  Louisiana. 

The  British  Barque  Aldebaran.  S  2d  May,  1845. 

On  the  application  of  Jacob  Barker  of  New  Orleans,  herein  appearing  as  “Amicus 
Curice,”  it  is,  on  filing  the  deposition  of  William  Broader  York,  ordered,  that  a  rule  be  grant¬ 
ed  commanding  N.  R.  Jennings,  the  Clerk  of  this  Court  to  appear  on  the  7th  day  of  May, 
instant,  at  ten  o’clock  A.  M.  to  answer  a  contempt  of  this  Court,  for  issuing  improperly,  and 
causing  the  seal  of  the  Court  to  be  affixed  thereto,  an  order  in  contravention  to  law,  and 
the  authority  possessed  by  said  Clerk,  for  the  delivery  of  the  British  barque  Aldebaran,  un¬ 
der  seizure  and  in  the  charge  of  the  Marshal  of  the  United  States,  to  Thomas  H.  Holder- 
ness,  or  his  agent,  without  any  authority  for  so  doing,  and  in  contempt  of  this  Court. 

And  also,  at  the  same  time  and  place,  that  Richard  Harrison  Chilton,  William  Mure, 
John  Winthrop  and  John  Claiborne,  be  also  commanded  to  appear  and  answer  a  contempt 
of  this  Court,  in  aiding  and  procuring  said  order  of  said  Clerk,  and  in  interfering  with  the 
orders  of  this  Court,  by  causing  the  said  barque  to  be  removed  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  Court,  as  set  forth  in  the  said  affidavit  of  William  B.  York. 

(Signed.)  THEO.  II.  M’CALEB, 

U.  .S'.  Judge. 


May,  1th,  1845. 

The  trial  on  the  foregoing  Rule,  for  contempt  of  Court  was  to  have 
come  up  this  day.  The  returns  being  exhibited,  it  was  found  that  the 
Marshal  had  returned  service  on  William  Mure,  Richard  H.  Chilton 
and  John  Claiborne — John  Winthrop  not  in  town.  Messrs.  Jennings  and 
Claiborne  appeared  in  Court  and  declared  their  readiness  to  answer. 

Mr.  Claiborne  said  that  Mr.  Winthrop  was  expected  back  in  a  day  or 
two,  and  then  excepted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court  over  the  British 
Consul,  intimating  that  the  Court  had  no  power  to  call  upon  him,  to  answer 
for  any  of  his  acts. 

This  the  Court  over-ruled,  declaring  its  power  to  compel  his  attendance 
to  answer;  and  saying  that  it  (the  Court)  could  not  regard  him  in  any  other 
light  than  as  a  Commercial  Agent. 

Mr.  Claiborne  then  said  Mr.  Mure  will  put  in  his  answer. 

Soon  alter  which  Messrs  Mure  and  Chilton  appeared  in  Court,  but  owing 
to  the  United  States  Circuit  Court  being  in  session,  and  having  a  press 
of  business  before  it,  the  case  was  obliged  to  be  postponed  until  the  1 9th 


May,  instant,  when  the  parties  were  ordered  to  appear  at  9  o’clock,  A.  M.. 
and  answer  to  the  charge  prefered  against  them. 

The  time  being  so  distant  when  this  investigation  is  to  lake  place — the 
issue  not  being  directly  important  to  the  elucidation  of  the  wrongs  of 
Captain  York,  (it  being  considered  that  the  mere  issuing  the  order  by  the 
Court  calling  upon  men  high  in  official  stations,  as  well  as  legal  and  pri¬ 
vate  relations,  to  answer  for  a  contempt  shewn  to  its  mandates  and  au¬ 
thority,  carries  with  it  a  sufficient  vindication  of  the  course  pursued  by 
Captain  York);  and  the  anxiety  of  many  to  be  in  possession  of  the  facts  of 
this  case  as  far  as  they  have  gone,  the  compiler  has  thought  proper  here  to 
close  his  labors,  remarking,  however,  that  other  proceedings,  in  the 
course  of  preparation,  of  which  he  has  been  informed,  will  be  resorted  to 
in  order  to  call  upon  those  to  atone  fully  for  their  conduct,  in  having  been 
instrumental  in  depriving  a  young  Captain  of  his  command  without  justifi¬ 
able  cause,  and  of  attempting  to  blast  his  fair  fame. 

The  following  affidavits,  which  have  been  sent  before  the  Criminal  Court 
as  the  ground  work  of  other  proceedings,  are  introduced  here,  so  that  the 
reader  may  be  informed  of  every  thing  which  has  transpired  up  to  the  time 
of  going  to  press. 

AFFIDAVITS. 

John  Wieu,  of  Arbroath,  Scotland,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says,  that  he  rs 
carpenter  ot  the  barque  Agneda,  of  Greenock,  that  he.  at  the  request  of  William  Hamlet 
Williamson,  mate  of  the  said  barque,  went  on  board  the  barque  Aldebaran  on  Monday 
evening,  the  28th  day  of  April,  1845,  to  assist  William  Broader  York,  master  of  the  said 
barque  Aldebaran,  in  taking  on  shore  his  baggage;  that  deponent  commenced  handing 
the  same  from  the  said  barque  to  the  said  Williamson,  who  was  standing  on  the  guard 
board  of  the  “Agneda;”  in  the  progress  of  which  the  said  “Aldebaran”  was  suddenly  ta¬ 
ken  off  by  the  steam  tow  boat  Shark,  carrying  witness  with  her;  that  on  her  passage 
down  to  the  Balize  many  articles,  said  to  be  the  residue  of  the  baggage  of  Captain  York 
were  delivered  to  witness,  who  assisted  in  putting  them  on  board  the  “Shark,”  consist¬ 
ing  of  two  trunks,  one  chest,  and  one  bed  and  bedding. 

That  soon  after  which  a  person  on  board  the  Aldebaran,  who  was  acting  as  mate,  and 
who  this  deponent  was  informed  was  the  chief  mate  of  the  said  barque  Aldebaran,  and 
who  this  deponent  believes  went  by  the  name  of  James  Scott — the  crew  addressed  him 
by  the  name  of  Mr.  Scott.  That  the  said  Scott  then  came  to  the  side  of  said  barque  and 
ordered  the  said  baggage  to  be  returned  from  the  steam  tow-boat  Shark  to  the  Aldebaran, 
alleging  that  Captain  York  was  indebted  to  him  (Scott)  in  the  sum  of  ten  pounds,  for 
which  he  would  take  the  baggage;  it  was  accordingly  passed  back  to  the  Aldebaran,  and 
was  received  by  the  second  mate  and  passed  in  part  or  in  whole  to  the  said  chief  mate, 
who  was  in  the  cabiu  gangway,  and  who  passed  the  same  into  the  cabin;  that  in  about  a 
quarter  ot  an  hour  the  packages  were  all  returned  to  the  Shark,  the  two  trunks  and  chest 
having  had  their  locks  forced  open;  that  on  arrival  at  New  Orleans  the  said  baggage  was 
delivered  to  the  said  Captain  York  in  the  precise  condition  it  was  returned  to  the  said 
Shark  from  the  Aldebaran,  according  to  the  best  knowledge  and  belief  of  witness,  and 
furthermore  this  deponent  saith  not. 

(Signed.)  JOHN  WEIR. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  5th  day  of  May,  A.  D.,  1845. 

•  Signed.)  N.  R.  JENNINGS, 

Clerk  U-  S.  District  Court. 


William  Hamlet  Williamson,  of  Port  Glasgow,  Renfrewshire,  Scotland,  being 
duly  sworn  deposes  and  says,  that  on  Monday  night,  the  twenty-eighth  day  of  April,  1845, 


Captain  William  B.  York  requested  deponent  to  assist  him  in  taking  out  his  baggage  and 
property  from  on  board  the  barque  Aldebaran,  lying  alongside  the  barque  Agneda,  of 
Greenoch,  of  which  this  deponent  is  mate;  whereupon  this  deponent,  accompanied  by  the 
carpenter  of  the  said  barque  Agneda,  then  went  on  board  the  Aldebaran  and  asked  Cap¬ 
tain  Turner  to  point  out  the  baggage  of  Captain  York-  he  (Captain  Turner)  went  into  the 
cabin  with  deponent  and  pointed  them  out,  and  while  in  the  act  of  taking  them  on  board 
the  barque  Agneda,  aforesaid,  the  said  barque  Aldebaran  was  taken  off  by  the  steam  tow 
boat  Shark,  carrying  with  her  the  carpenter  of  the  said  barque  Agneda,  together  with 
most  of  the  baggage  of  Captain  York.  That  when  he,  this  deponent,  was  coming  out  of 
the  cabin  with  part  of  the  baggage,  James  Scott  met  deponent  and  demanded  to  know 
who  he,  deponent,  was,  and  where  Captain  York  was?  Saying  “the  d — <1  son  of  a  b — h, 
he  thought  to  get  me  out  of  the  ship;  but  we  have  served  him  out;”  and  that  then  the 
said  Scott  ran  and  let  go  the  stern  line.  That  seeing  the  said  barque  Aldebaran  swinging 
off,  the  deponent  sprang  on  board  his  own  vessel  (the  Agneda)  and  called  to  the  carpen¬ 
ter  lo  follow  him,  but  he  was  not  quick  enough  to  get  out.  Deponent  further  saith,  that 
said  Scott  (seeing  him,  deponent,  beyond  reach)  called  out  to  him,  saying,  “where  are 
you  now?— you  had  better  come  and  take  Captain  York’s  things  on  shore.” 

(Signed.)  W.  IIAMLET  WILLIAMSON. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  6th  day  of  May,  A.  D.,  1-845. 

(Signed,)  N.  R.  JENNINGS, 

Clerk  U.  S.  District  Court: 

William  Broader  York,  of  Hull,  England,  being  duly  sworn,  deposes  and  says,  that 
he  was  lately  Master  of  the  barque  Aldebaran,  that  the  said  barque  was  forcibly  arrested 
from  his  command  and  sent  to  sea;  that  finding  Richard  Harrison  Chilton  was  determined 
to  send  the  barque  to  sea,  in  defiance  of  all  law  and  authority,  on  the  twenty-eighth  day  of 
April,  1845,  in  tow  of  the  steam  tow  boat  called  the  “Geneva,”  he  attempted  to  go  on  board 
to  get  out  his  baggage  and  property,  when  James  Scott,  mate  of  said  barque,  stood  on  the 
rail  of  said  vessel,  near  the  gangway,  where  there  was  a  plank  placed,  leading  from  the 
wharf  to  the  barque,  in  an  attitude  of  defiance,  and  that  while  deponent  was  on  said  plank 

said  Scott  called  out  to  those  on  deck,  “  shove  the  d — d  son  of  a  b - h  overboard,”  and 

then  with  the  assistance  of  some  of  the  crew,  the  said  Scott  pushed  the  plank  forcibly  off  the 
vessel;  that  deponent  with  difficulty  gained  the  edge  of  the  wharf,  when  immediately  after¬ 
wards  the  said  barque  was  taken  off  by  the  said  steam  tow  boat  “  Geneva,”  carrying  with 
her  the  keeper  appointed  by  the  United  States  Marshal,  and  who  had  her  then  in  charge 
and  under  seizure;  that  the  deponent  and  the  said  keeper  both  forbid  all  persons  then  and 
there  concerned,  not  to  take  off  said  barque  from  her  said  moorings;  thatshe  was  shortly  af¬ 
terwards  brought  back  to  the  Levee,  (alongside  of  the  barque  Agneda,)  by  the  orders  and 
direction  of  J.  P.  Walden,  one  of  the  deputy  Marshals,  who  employed  the  steam  tow  boat 
“  Star”  for  that  purpose,  and  immediately  after  which  the  said  barque  Aldebaran  was  taken 
and  sent  to  sea,  taking  with  her  a  portion  of  deponent’s  baggage  and  other  property,  not¬ 
withstanding  that  this  deponent  used  every  exertion  to  get  the  same  on  shore,  assisted  by 
William  H.  Williamson,  chief  mate,  and  John  Wier,  carpenter,  of  the  barque  Agneda, 
which  vessel  was  then  lying  alongside  his  said  barque;  that  one  of  whom,  to  wit :  John 
Wier,  was  taken  offin  the  said  vessel;  that  when  the  said  steam  boat  “  Shark”  returned  to 
New  Orleans  she  brought  back  two  trunks,  one  chest,  and  one  bed  and  bedding,  being  a 
part  of  this  deponent’s  property;  that  the  locks  of  the  said  chest  and  trunks  had  been  forced 
open,  and  the  contents  rifled  of  the  following  articles,  the  property  of  this  deponent,  and 
which  cost  deponent  as  near  as  he  can  recollect,  the  sums  set  opposite  the  name  of  each 


article, to  wit: 

£  s.  d. 

A  full  set  of  Charts,  -  -  -  10  16  0 

Scale, dividors,  and  parellel  rule,  -  -  -14  0 

One  new  invisible  green  wrapper,  -  -  4  0  0 

A  lot  of  Books,  amongst  which  were  works  on  navigation,  and  direc-  i 

tions  for  sailing,  &c.,  about  -  -  )  5  0  0 

1  sextant,  -  *  10  10  0 

1  silver  watch,  -  -  -  4  0  0 

1  new  black  cloth  vest,  -  -  -  110 

1  beaver  hat,  -  -  -  18  0 

A  lot  of  shirts,  under  clothing  and  other  wearing  apparel,  about  3  0  0 

And  that  there  was  also  taken  other  of  his  property  in  the  cabin  and  about  said  vessel ,  viz  : 
1  barometer,  -  -  -  2  17  6 

1  writing  desk  and  contents,  about  -  12  0  0 

Sundry  articles  about  the  cabin  of  various  descriptions,  about  5  0  0 

2  pigs,  -  -  *  •  2  2  0 


54 


That  according  to  the  best  of  deponent’s  recollection  and  belief,  the  total  cost  of  the  afore¬ 
said  articles  amounts  to  sixty-one  pounds  eighteen  shillings  and  six  pence,  sterling,  or  about 
two  hundred  and  ninety-seven  dollars  and  twenty-four  cents  in  federal  money. 

This  deponent  further  says,  that  he  has  good  reason  for  believing,  and  that  he  does  believe 
that  James  Scott,  mate  of  the  barque  “  Aldebaran,”  committed  said  theft. 

This  deponent  further  saith.  that  the  said  barque  was  taken  off  under  the  command  of 
Benjamin  Turner,  and  that  Richard  Harrison  Chilton,  William  Mure,  John  Winthrop,  and 
Richard  M.  Carter,  were  present,  aiding  and  abetting  in  despatching  the  said  barque. 

(Signed,)  WILLIAM  BROADER  YORK. 

Sworn  to  and  subscribed  before  the,  this  6th  May,  A.  D.,  1845. 

(Signed.)  N.  R.  JENNINGS, 

Clerk  U.  S.  District  Court. 


ERRATA. 

Page  20 — After  the  words,  Mr.  B.  here  related  the  following  anecdote,  read  “  rn  illustra 
tion  of  the  respect  paid  to  individual  rights,  even  in  monarchial  governments.’-  &c. 


55 


APPENDIX 


Sections  XLVIand  XLVII  of  the  7th  and  8th  Victoria,  Cap.  112,  quoted  in  the  letter  of 
H.  B.  M.  Consul,  on  page  14,  as  his  authority  for  superseding  Captain  York  in  the  com 
mand  of  his  vessel;  to  which  is  added  the  XLVIII  section  of  the  same  act  for  the  better 
information  of  all  concerned. 

Sec.  46.  And  whereas  great  mischiefs  have  arisen  from  masters  of 
merchant  ships  leaving  seamen  in  foreign  parts,  who  have  been  thus  re¬ 
duced  to  distress,  and  thereby  tempted  to  become  pirates,  or  otherwise 
misconduct  themselves,  and  it  is  expedient  to  amend  and  enlarge  the  law 
in  this  behalf;  be  it  therefore  enacted  ;  That  '  if  any  master  of  a  ship  be¬ 
longing  to  any  subject  of  Her  Majesty  shall  discharge  any  person  belong¬ 
ing  to  his  ship  or  crew,  at  any  of  Her  Majesty’s  colonies  or  plantations, 
without  the  previous  sanction  in  writing  (to  be  endorsed  on  the  agreement)  of 
the  Governor  or  other  officer  holding  the  chief  authority  there,  or  of  the  Secre¬ 
tary  or  other  officer  duly  appointed  by  the  Government  there  in  that  behalf, 
or  in  the  absence  of  such  functionaries  then  of  the  chief  officer  of  customs 
resident  at  or  near  such  port  or  place,  or  shall  discharge  any  such  person 
at  any  other  place  abroad  without  the  like  previous  sanction,  to  be  so  en¬ 
dorsed  on  the  agreement  by  Her  Majesty’s  Minister,  Consul,  or  Vice  Con¬ 
sul  there,  or  in  the  absence  of  any  such  functionary  then  of  two  re¬ 
spectable  merchants  resident  there,  such  Master  shall  be  guilty  of  a  mis¬ 
demeanor;  or  if  any  Master  of  any  such  ship  shall  abandon  or  leave  be¬ 
hind  at  any  such  Colony  or  Plantation  any  person  belonging  to  his  ship  or 
crew,  on  the  plea  or  pretence  of  unfitness  or  inability  to  proceed  upon  the 
voyage,  or  of  desertion  or  disappearance  from  the  ship,  without  a  previous 
certificate  in  writing  (to  be  endorsed  on  the  agreement)  of  the  Governor, 
Secretary,  or  other  officer  as  aforesaid,  or  in  the  absence  of  such  functionary, 
then  of  the  chief  officer  of  customs  resident  at  or  near  such  port  or  place, 
certifying  such  unfitness,  inability,  desertion  or  disappearance,  or  shall 
abandon  or  leave  behind  any  person  belonging  to  his  ship  or  crew  at  any 
other  place  abroad,  on  shore  or  at  sea,  upon  such  plea  or  pretence,  without 
the  like  previous  certificate  from  Her  Majesty’s  minister,  consul, 
or  vice  consul  there,  or  in  the  absence  of  any  such  functionary,  then  of 
two  respectable  merchants,  if  there  be  any  such  at  or  within  a  reasonable 
distance  from  the  place  where  the  ship  shall  then  be,  such  Master  shall  be 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor;  or  if  any  Master  of  any  such  ship,  in  case  any 
person  belonging  to  his  ship  or  crew  shall  desert  from  the  said  ship  at  any¬ 
place  abroad  shall  neglect  to  notify  the  same  in  writing  to  one  of  such 
functionaries  as  aforesaid,  if  there  be  any  such  resident  at  or  near  the  place, 
and  in  their  absence,  if  it  be  out  of  Her  Majesty’s  dominions,  then  to  two 


5(i 


respectable  merchants,  if  there  be  such  at  or  near  the  place,  within  twenty- 
four  hours  of  such  desertion,  such  master  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor; 
and  the  said  functionaries  are  hereby  authorized  and  required,  and  the  said 
merchants  are  authorized,  to  examine  into  the  grounds  of  such  proposed 
discharge,  or  into  the  plea  or  pretence  of  such  unfitness,  inability,  deser¬ 
tion,  or  disappearance  as  aforesaid,  in  a  summary  way,  upon  oath,  (which 
oath  they  are  hereby  respectively  authorized  to  administer,)  and  to  grant 
or  refuse  such  sanction  or  certificate  according  to  the  circumstances,  and 
as  it  shall  appear  to  them  to  be  just. 

Skc.  47.  And  be  it  enacted,  That  if  the  Master  of  any  ship  belonging 
to  any  of  her  Majesty’s  subjects,  or  the  mate  or  other  officer  of  such  ship,  shall 
wrongfully  force  on  shore  and  leave  behind,  or  shall  otherwise  wilfully  and 
wrongfully  leave  behind  on  shore  or  at  sea,  in  or  out  of  her  Majesty’s  do¬ 
minions,  any  person  belonging  to  his  ship  or  crew,  before  the  completion 
of  the  voyage  for  which  such  person  was  engaged,  or  the  return  of  the  ship 
to  the  United  Kingdom,  such  Master,  Mate  or  other  officer  shall  be  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor;  and  every  misdemeanor  mentioned  or  created  by  this 
act  shall  and  may  bo  prosecuted  by  information  at  the  suit  of  Her  Majes¬ 
ty’s  Attorney  General,  or  by  indictment  or  other  legal  proceeding  in  any 
Court  having  criminal  jurisdiction  in  Her  Majesty’s  dominions  at  home  or 
abroad;  and  the  offence  may  be  laid  and  charged  in  the  said  information, 
indictment  or  other  legal  proceeding  to  have  been  committed  in  the  county 
or  place  where  the  offender  shall  happen  to  be,  who,  being  convicted 
thereof,  shall  be  liable  to  fine  or  imprisonment,  or  both,  as  to  the  Court 
before  whom  he  is  tried  shall  seem  meet;  and  every  court  is  hereby  author¬ 
ized  to  issue  a  commission  or  commissions  for  the  examination  of  any  wit¬ 
ness  or  witnesses  who  may  be  absent  or  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Court; 
and  at  the  trial  of  the  depositions  taken  under  such  commission  or  commis¬ 
sions,  if  such  witness  or  witnesses  shall  be  then  absent,  shall  be  receiv- 
ed  in  evidence. 

XLVIII.  And  be  it  enacted,  That  if  any  Master  shall,  contrary  to  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  discharge,  abandon,  or  leave  behind  any  seaman  or 
other  person  belonging  to  the  ship  or  crew,  with  or  without  his  consent,  if. 
shall  be  incumbent  on  such  Master,  in  any  information,  indictment,  or  other 
proceeding  against  him,  to  produce  or  prove  such  sanction  or  respective 
certificate  as  aforesaid,  or  prove  the  impracticability  of  obtaining  such  cer¬ 
tificate. 


EXTRACTS  FROM  NEWSPAPERS  PUBLISHED  IN  THE 
CITY  OF  NEW  ORLEANS. 

From  the  Jeffersonian  Republican  of  Thursday  morning ,  April  17,  1845. 
SINGULAR  AFFAIR. 

Captain  York,  who  came  to  this  port  in  charge  of  the  British  bark  Alde- 
baran,  appeared  yesterday  before  Recorder  Lewis,  to  answer  the  com¬ 
plaint  of  Mr.  R.  II.  Chilton,  as  contemplating  a  breach  of  the  peace.  It 
seems  that  in  consequence  of  some  misunderstanding,  the  complainanant 


57 


had,  through  the  agency  of  the  British  Consul  at  this  port,  sought  to  de¬ 
prive  Captain  York  of  his  command — the  Consul  naming  another  com¬ 
mander.  Captain  York  resisted,  and  manifested  his  determination  to  re¬ 
tain  his  position  on  board  the  Aldebaran  by  the  laws  of  the  United  States. 
The  question  raised  before  his  Honor  was,  whether  the  Consul  of  a  foreign 
power  has  the  right  to  control  private  property  belonging  to  subjects  of  the 
nation  he  represents,  to  the  extent  of  depriving  the  captain  of  a  vessel  of 
his  command,  without  any  visible  misconduct  on  the  part  of  the  latter. 
Mr.  Chilton  appeared  to  sustain  his  charge,  and  Jacob  Barker,  Esq.,  in 
behalf  of  Captain  York.  Recorder  Lewis,  after  hearing  some  testimony, 
postponed  further  consideration  of  the  subject  to  this  day,  at  noon. 


From  the  New  Orleans  Bee  of  Thursday ,  April  17,  1845. 

A  novel  case  in  our  Courts,  came  off  yesterday  before  Recorder  Lewis. 
From  what  we  can  learn  of  the  case,  it  appears  that  during  the  passage  of 
the  British  barque  Aldebaran,  Cafffain  York,  from' Liverpool  To  this  port, 
the  chief  mate,  Scott,  was,  in  consequence  of  disorderly  conduct,  displaced 
by  order  of  the  Captain.  Upon  the  arrival  here  of  the  vessel,  a  person 
named  Chilton,  representing  himself  as  the  Agent  of  the  supposed  owners 
of  the  vessel,  called  upon  the  British  Consul  and  requested  Captain  York 
should  be  deposed  from  command  and  another  captain  appointed,  which 
was  done  by  the  Consul — the  Consignees  of  the  vessel,  Messrs.  Gordon, 
Wylie  &  Co.,  denying  Mr.  Chilton’s  right  of  agency,  and  protesting  against 
the  action  taken  by  the  Consul. 

Upon  Captain  York’s  going  on  board  of  his  vessel,  he  was  informed  that 
unless  he  left  immediately,  he  would  be  placed  under  arrest.  Upon  his 
refusal  to  go  on  shore  he  was  arrested  by  the  officers  of  the  Third  Munici¬ 
pality  police,  and  thrown  into  prison,  from  which  he  was  shortly  released 
on  bail.  The  examination  of  the  case,  which  commenced  yesterday,  was 
continued  over  until  to-dav.  Jacob  Barker,  Esq.,  appears  as  Counsel  for 
Captain  York. 

The  question  at  issue  is,  whether  a  Consul  has  a  right  to  depose  a  cap- 
tain  of  a  vessel,  against  the  will  of  the  consignees. 


From  the  Jeffersonian  Republican  of  Friday,  April  18,  1845. 

THE  STATE  vs.  WILLIAM  B.  YORK. 

Recorder  Lewis  resumed  the  examination  of  this  case  yesterday,  when 
John  Winthrop,  Esq.,  accompanied  by  the  British  Consul,  appeared  on  be¬ 
half  of  the  prosecutor.  Messrs  Barker  and  Latour  for  the  defendant.  At 
the  commencement  of  the  proceedings,  a  point  was  raised  by  the  defendant’s 
counsel,  claiming  right  the  of  cross-examining  the  prosecutor.  Mr.  Win 
8 


58 


throp  insisted  that  the  prosecutor,  having  made  the  affidavit,  had  complied 
with  all  the  requirements  of  law,  and  could  not  be  forced  to  support  his  al¬ 
legation  by  being  questioned  further.  This  objection  was  overruled  by  the 
Court. 

The  whole  of  the  examination  then  turned  upon  questions  as  to  the  real 
ownership  of  the  Aldebaran,  and  if  these  owners  had,  or  had  not,  given  to 
Mr.  Chilton  the  power  which  he  contends  he  has,  to  act  as  agent  of  the 
vessel.  This  question  was  investigated  at  large,  and  finally  postponed 
until  this  day,  for  Mr.  Chilton  to  produce  certain  letters,  in  which  he  con¬ 
tends  such  authority  to  him  is  given.  So  far  as  the  evidence  has  gone, 
the  only  business  or  commission  which  appears  to  have  devolved  on  Mr. 
Chilton  is,  the  responsibility  of  advising  Captain  York  in  reference  to  the 
purchase  of  an  “old  flat  boat”  to  break  up  for  dunnage.  The  affidavit 
sets  forth  that  Mr.  Chilton,  as  agent,  feared  that  Captain  York,  coming  on 
board  his  own  vessel,  might  commit  a  breach  of  the  peace,  he  having  been 
deposed  from  such  command  by  authority  of  the  British  Consul,  foralledged 
misconduct;  but  what  the  nature  of  that  conduct  is,  has  not  transpired  as 
yet. 

^  finr  nuLj.*.,nMnnipiUi.  lmrl  tnlim  pfaafe  Mr.  Mure,  the  British  Consul, 
requested  permission  to  address  the  Court — not  in  reference  to  this  partic¬ 
ular  case  however,  only  so  far  as  his  name  as  Consul  had  been  mixed  up 
with  it.  This  was  granted. 

Mr.  Mure  then  defined  his  position  as  Consul,  and  went  on  to  inform 
the  Court  as  to  the  extent  of  his  authority  as  regards  British  subjects;  and 
particularly  the  captains,  sailors  and  apprentices.  He  contended 
that  he  was  not  amenable  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States  for  any 
of  his  official  acts,  that  the  laws  of  England  gave  him  sovereign 
authority;  and,  that  it  was  more  an  act  of  clemency  on  his  part,  than  other¬ 
wise,  that  he  had  not  dealt  with  Captain  York  more  harshly ;  that  his  au¬ 
thority  over  refractory  commanders  of  British  vessels,  was  the  same  as  it 
was  over  mates,  seamen,  and  apprentices  !  and  that  Great  Britain  did  not 
make  one  law  for  the  captain  and  another  for  the  sailor.  He  concluded 
by  saying  something  to  the  effect  that  for  his  official  acts  he  held  himself 
responsible  to  his  government  at  home  ;  but  that  he  could  recognize  no 
authority  to  call  him  into  question  here. 

The  expression  of  some  of  Mr.  Mure’s  views  caused  a  great  sensation 
in  the  Court;  and  once,  during  the  asservation  of  such  powers  being  vested 
in  him,  he  was  interrupted  by  the  overstrained  feelings  of  Mr.  Latour, 
who  gave  vent  to  them  in  a  few  thrilling,  remarks  in  opposition  to  such, 
sentiments.  Mr.  Barker  wished  the  Consul  not  to  be  interrupted,  and 
when  he  had  concluded,  desired  to  reply;  but  as  this  was  no  part  of  the 
case,  he  desisted,  and  will  reserve  his  remarks  for  the  closing  argument. 

The  utmost  excitement  was  manifested  by  the  thronged  Court  for  the 
decision  of  this  case,  which  we  suppose  will  be  concluded  to-day. 

From  the  Jeffersonian  Republican  of  April  19,  1845. 
STATE  vs:  WILLIAM  B.  YORK.  — THIRD  DAY. 

Recorder  Lewis,  at  the  hour  appointed  yesterday,  resumed  the  investiga- 

•  \ 


59 


tion  of  this  case;  after  waiting  a  considerable  time  for  the  appearance  of 
the  prosecutor,  his  counsel,  or  the  British  Consul,  but  neither  of  them  ap¬ 
pearing,  his  Honor  determined  to  go  on  with  the  case,  as  the  prisoner  and 
his  counsel  were  in  attendance. 

The  Recorder  in  the  commencement  stated  that  inasmuch  as  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  authority  had  arisen  in  the  necessary  investigation  of  this  case,  that 
he  should  have  to  pass  upon  it;  but  in  doing  so  he  wished  it  to  be  clearly 
understood,  that  whatever  his  decision  might  be,  that  it  was  not  intended  to 
interfere  with  the  rights  of  either  party. 

Mr.  Barker,  for  the  defendant,  produced  several  documents  in  relation 
to  the  case,  which  were  filed  and  form  a  part  of  the  record;  these  com¬ 
prise,  among  other  things,  an  interesting  correspondence  with  the  British 
Consul. 

Several  British  ship-masters  were  then  examined  on  behalf  of  Captain 
York,  who  all  testified  to  his  peaceable  deportment  and  ability  as  a  com¬ 
mander;  during  the  examination  of  one  of  whom,  Mr.  Chilton  made  his 
appearance,  and  stated  as  a  reason  for  not  producing  his  authority  to  act 
as  agent,  (required  of  him  on  Thursday)  was  a  supposition  that  a  compro¬ 
mise,  for  which  negotiations  had  been  pending,  would  supersede  the  neces¬ 
sity  for  further  proceedings. 

The  prosecutor  did  not  seem  to  be  aware  of  the  difference  between  a 
prosecution  on  the  part  of  the  public  and  that  on  the  part  of  individuals. 
This  is  a  State  prosecution,  on  the  affidavit  made  by  Mr.  Chilton,  and  the 
law  does  not  allow  of  compromises  in  such  matters. 

In  all  criminal  prosecutions,  those  complained  of  have  only  to  defend 
themselves.  The  counsel  for  Captain  York  expressed  an  earnest  desire 
that  the  full  time  should  be  given  to  the  prosecutor  to  produce  eveiy  thing 
pertaining  to  his  authority. 

It  is  important,  said  Mr.  Barker,  that  the  record  should  exhibit  the 
whole  story,  and  spoke  at  some  length  in  an  able  manner,  contending  that 
his  client  was  on  his  defence,  and  should  have  a  speedy  deliverence.  He 
further  stated  that  the  record  of  these  proceedings  would  be  sent  to  Eng. 
land  to  refute  or  explain  the  statement  which,  as  was  understood  from  Mr. 
Chilton,  had  already  gone  from  the  other  side  to  the  British  Minister  at 
Washington,  therefore  he,  Mr,  B.,  did  not  complain  of  this  suit  going  on, 
pending  the  negotiation  for  a  compromise  of  other  matters,  and  thought  it 
did  not  become  the  prosecutor  to  find  fault  with  the  exertions  of  his  client 
to  get  out  of  prison,  where  he  had  been  incarcerated  with  the  lowest  of 
this  community,  or  to  be  released  from  the  bonds  given  to  answer  this 
charge. 

The  Court  finally  allowed  further  time  for  Mr  Chilton  to  produce  his  let¬ 
ters,  and  for  that  purpose  adjourned  the  case  to  one  o’clock  this  day. 

— —  •% 

From  the  New  Orleans  Bee  of  April  19,  1845. 
RECORDER  LEWIS’  COURT. 

6TATE  VS»  WILLIAM  B.  YORK.  - THIRD  DAY. 

Yesterday  morning  the  Recorder  resumed  the  examination — but  neither 


«u 


Mr.  Chilton,  his  counsel,  or  the  British  Consul  made  their  appearance  in 
Court,  though  an  hour  was  spent  waiting  for  them. 

The  Recorder  stated  in  resuming  the  case,  that  inasmuch  as  the  question 
of  ownership  and  the  accredited  agency  of  the  barque  Aldebaran,  had 
been  brought  up  in  the  investigation,  it  was  incumbent  upon  him  to  decide 
whether  Captain  York  was  justified  or  not,  in  the  course  he  had  pursued, 
but  in  so  doing,  he  wished  to  be  clearly  understood,  that  he  did  not  wish  to 
interfere  with  the  rights  of  either  parties. 

Mr.  Barker  opened  the  case  for  Captain  York,  and  filed  several  docu¬ 
ments  in  relation  to  it — after  which  he  called  several  captains  of  British 
vessels  to  testify  as  to  the  conduct  of  Captain  York. 

These  witnesses  with  singular  unanimity,  all  concurred  in  giving  the 
prisoner  an  excellent  character,  his  peaceable  deportment  and  good  man¬ 
agement  as  a  commander;  and  also,  testified  to  the  abusive  conduct  of 
Scott,  his  mate,  to  him  while  in  port,  and  through  whose  representations  the 
British  Consul  superseded  Captain  York,  and  placed  him  in  command. 
(This  same  man  has  since  been  reduced  to  mate,  and  another  person  ap¬ 
pointed  as  captain.) 

During  the  examination  of  these  witnesses,  Mr.  Chilton  made  his  ap¬ 
pearance,  and  gave  as  a  reason  for  his  non-attendance,  that  he  thought  a 
compromise,  which  had  been  proposed  to  Captain  York,  would  supersede 
the  necessity  of  further  proceedings,  and  that  was  also  a  reason  why  he 
did  not  produce  the  letters  required  of  him. 

Mr.  Barker  expressed  a  wish  that  ample  time  should  be  given  for  their 
production,  and  at  the  same  time  went  on  at  length  to  show  that  no  com¬ 
promises  could  be  entered  into  to  intercept  criminal  prosecutions,  and  urged 
the  case  to  be  proceeded  with  in  a  legal  manner,  that  full  justice  should  be 
done  to  his  oppressed  client,  who  had  been  incarcerated  with  felons  and 
drunkards,  and  was  still  under  bonds  to  appear  and  answer  the  complaint 
of  this  pretended  agent;  but  at  the  same  time  desired  every  opportunity  to 
be  given  to  the  other  side  to  produce  all  the  evidence  in  their  power. 

The  Court  then  adjourned  the  case  to  one  o’clock  this  day — when  the 
arguments  of  counsel  will  be  heard  and  the  case  no  doubt  disposed  of. 

The  Court  was  crowded  to  excess.  * 

This  case  in  its  present  bearings  presents  one  seldom  heard  of  in  this 
country,  and  we  trust  never  will  again.  A  master  of  a  vessel  has  reason 
to  complain  of  his  mate — he  does  so — the  mate  rejoins  and  complains  of  the 
Captain.  Mr.  Chilton  pretends  that  he  has  authority  to  act  as  agent  of  the 
vessel — but  pertinaciously  withholds  the  proof — makes  a  complaint  to  the 
Brit'sh  Consul,  who  forthwith,  without  any  ceremony  displaces  Capt.  York — 
and  places  his  disobedient  mate  in  command,  who  in  his  turn  applies  the  most 
abusive  epithets  to  his  lawful  commander — the  commander  seeks  for  advice, 
being  a  young  man,  and  his  first  voyage  in  that  capacity,  i.  e.  to  maintain  those 
rights  given  him  by  his  owners,  and  which  have  never  been  countermand¬ 
ed,  is  arrested  on  a  warrant  under  the  fears  of  Mr.  Chilton — that  in  exer¬ 
cising  that  authority  given  him  by  the  laws  of  nations — he  will  commit  a 
breach  of  the  peace.  Then  in  order  to  establish  such  proof  being  called 
upon  for  his  authority,  he  withholds  it  upon  the  plea  that  the  letters  con* 


61 


taining  it,  relate  also  to  other .  matters,  together  with  other  frivolous 
excuses — during  all  which  time  the  oppressed  defendant  and  his  friends 
are  compelled  to  dance  attendance  upon  a  police  court,  and  then  sought  to 
enter  into  compromise — the  end  of  which  would  place  him  again  on  board 
his  vessel  to  go  home,  if  the  proposition  ofthe  British  Consul  were  acceded 
to,  for  further  persecution.  < 


From  the  Jeffersonian  Republican  of  Monday ,  21  st  April. 

STATE  vs.  WM.  B.  YORK— FOURTH  AND  LAST  DAY. 

Recorder  Lewis  at  the  hour  appointed  on  Saturday,  resumed  the  exami¬ 
nation,  neither  the  prosecutor,  his  counsel,  or  the  British  Consul  made 
their  appearance,  consequently  Mr.  Chilton’s  authority  was  again  minus. 
It  is  proper  to  state  here  that  some  time  during  the  morning  Mr.  Chilton 
made  application  to  the  Recorder,  to  permit  him  to  withdraw  his  affidavit 
and  dismiss  the  case.  This  His  Honor  very  properly  refused  on  the 
grounds  that  Mr.  Chilton  having  made  an  affidavit  against  the  person  of 
an  individual,  on  behalf  of  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the  State  of  Louisiana, 
must  go  through  and  prove,  or  fail  to  prove  his  allegation;  and  next,  that 
no  dismissal  could  take  place  without  the  presence  of,  or  consent  of  the 
accused,  who  had  demanded  a  thorough  investigation. 

Mr.  Barker,  for  accused,  called  on  Edward  Mason,  the  second  mate  of 
the  barque  Aldebaran,  to  produce  the  log-book  of  the  vessel — this  witness 
was  then  sworn,  and  testified  that  the  record  of  the  incidents  and  facts 
contained  in  the  log  book  were  written  by  him.  Those  entries  made  in 
the  log  book  having  particular  reference  to  the  misconduct  of  James  Scott, 
the  chief  mate,  on  Thursday,  27th  February;  Sunday,  2d  March;  and 
Thursday,  13th  March,  last,  are  in  his  hand  writing,  and  were  signed  by 
the  Captain,  now  copied  on  the  record  of  the  Court.  The  entries  on  the 
log-book  were  sometimes  not  made  up  from  the  slate  on  the  days  they 
bear  date,  but  as  soon  as  he  had  time  afterwards,  sometimes  a  day  or  two. 

Here  Mr.  Scott,  Mate  of  the  Aldebaran,  was  permitted  to  cross-exam¬ 
ine  the  witness,  who  stated  that  “  what  is  written  in  the  log  by  me  is  not 
true ,  according  to  my  notion.” 

Mr.  Barker  requested  him  to  look  at  the  log-book  particularly,  and  point 
out  those  points  which  he,  the  witness,  considered  untrue,  he  did  so,  and 
pointed  out  one  or  two  immaterial  errors  in  the  account  he  had  written  of 
what  happened  after  the  arrival  of  the  vessel  in  port,  and  which  had  a  ten¬ 
dency  to  contradict  his  answer  to  Scott.  The  witness  being  further  ques¬ 
tioned,  stated  that  he  had  looked  carefully,  and  particularly  so  at  the  day's 
work  copied  in  the  record  of  this  case ,  and  could  not  find  any  other  errors 
in  the  log-book;  the  witness  then  recognized  two  keys  produced  by  Capt. 
York,  as  belonging  to  the  doors  of  rooms  in  the  cabin  of  the  vessel,  after 
which  nothing  of  importance  was  elicited. 

Captain  Frazer,  of  the  British  barque  Pollock,  being  sworn,  stated  that 
he  was  present  when  Captain  York  was  arrested,  and  accompanied  him 


62 


to,  and  saw  the  persons  with  whom  he  was  incarcerated  in  the  calaboose 
— he  also  corroborated  the  evidence  of  others,  as  to  the  good  conduct  of 
Capt.  York,  and  the  good  condition  of  the  vessel. 

Mr.  Verin,  chief  mate  of  the  British  ship  Bradshaw,  was  also  offered  as 
a  witness  to  prove  the  intemperance  of  Mr.  Scott,  the  deposed  mate,  who 
it  had  been  attempted  to  appoint  Captain  of  the  Aldebaran,  over  the  head' 
of  Captain  York — but  the  Court  not  deeming  this  testimony  immediately 
applicable  to  the  case,  ruled  it  out. 

Mr.  Barker  then  addressed  the  Court  in  behalf  of  the  accused;  for 
whose  speech  see  page  17. 

The  Court,  in  a  very  few  moments,  delivered  the  following  judgment : 
“  There  being  no  just  cause  of  apprehension  of  an  intention,  on  the  part 
ot  the  accused  to  commit  a  breach  of  the  peace  proved  in  this  case,  the 
complaint  is  therefore  dismissed,  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  the 
parties. 

The  Court  was  very  crowded,  and  we  must  say  we  never  saw  more 
warmhearted  sympathy  expressed  for  any  man  than  did  Captain  York’s 
brother  ship  masters  feel  for  him,  and  we  trust  in  a  few  hours,  to  see  the 
Captain  proudly  walking  his  own  deck  in  compliance  with  his  rights,  his 
instructions,  and  strict  justice. 

From  the  Captain  and  Seaman’s  Advocate ,  May  4,  1845. 
JACOB  BARKER’S  SPEECH, 

IN  DEFENCE  OF  SAILOR’S  RIGHTS. 

The  trial  of  Captain  York,  of  the  barque  Aldebaran,  occasioned  very 
great  interest  for  several  days,  and  elicited  much  talent,  ingenuity  and  re¬ 
search  from  learned  counsel,  from  whose  efforts  we  select  the  speech  of 
Jacob  Barker,  Esq.,  (as  reported  for  the  Jeffersonian  Republican)  and 
claim  for  it  the  attention  of  maritime  men,  as  peculiarly  addressed  to  their 
interests.  It  is  a  masterly  defence  of  Captain  York,  and  by  its  force  and 
irresistible  reasoning,  must  have  broken  down  the  bulwarks  of  opposition, 
had  not  Captain  York  been  guarded  by  a  defence  stronger  than  cuirass  of 
steel — his  innocence  of  the  charge  alleged  against  him,  and  the  full  per¬ 
formance  of  his  duty,  as  evidenced  in  Court.  Every  captain,  every  sailor 
should  be  in  possession  of  this  soul  stirring  and  eloquent  speech.  The  re¬ 
ference  made  by  the  venerable  advocate,  to  the  spring-time  of  life,  when 
the  blue-jacket  and  tarpaulin  were  familiar  things  to  him,  is  calculated  to 
bring  a  tear  to  the  eye  of  many  an  “old  salt.”  Subordination  on  board 
ship  must  exist,  or  discipline  is  gone,  and  the  vessel  might  as  well  be  sent 
adrift  in  a  gale  without  a  rudder.  Every  man  should  know  his  duty  and 
then  do  his  duty.  It  should  be  remembered  by  each  individual  that,  he 
does  not  alone  hold  his  own  life  in  his  hands,  but  upon  him  depends  the 
lives  of  his  messmates,  his  captain  and  all  who  sail  beneath  his  flag.  The 
wild  ocean  is  no  tame  and  gentle  plaything,  and  danger  lurks  beneath  every 
wave.  One  wrong  step  and  all  is  lost.  Then  the  responsibilitity  of  every 
individual  from  the  captain  to  “the  man  before  the  mast,”  is  incalculable. 
That  the  master  of  the  Aldebaran  did  his  duty,  we  feel  convinced,  and  to 
convince  others,  beg  to  refer  to  Mr.  Barker’s  speech. 


v 


1  *:  f 


- 


i 


... 


► 


w  i 


I  - 


Panrohlets. 

L15^94l 

Vol.905 

DATE 

ISSUED  TO 

U  *54^41 

\joi‘\o6' 

